ArticlesHere at Understanding Islam we provide you with all information regarding Islam. We attempt to explain Islam in the light of the Qur'an and Sunnah from various aspects and by responding to criticisms and queries.http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:31:26 +0000Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Managementen-gbThe Text of the Bible and Some Types of Corruption in Ithttp://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/other-religions/the-text-of-the-bible-and-some-types-of-corruption-in-it-191
http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/other-religions/the-text-of-the-bible-and-some-types-of-corruption-in-it-191The
Text of the Bible
and
Some Types of Corruptionin
it

The Bible
is initially divided into two major parts: the Old Testament;
and the New Testament. The NT relates to Jesus Christ and his Apostles. It
was
originally written in the Greek language, whereas Jesus delivered his
message/gospel in the Aramaic language in which language it was never
written.
It consists of 27 books. First four books are the Gospels according to
Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John. The next is 'The Acts of Apostles.' Then
there are 21
Epistles (letters) ascribed to Apostles. The last one is
'Revelation'.

The OT consists of 39 books. It was mainly written in
the
Hebrew language with the exception of some chapters of Daniel and Exra
etc.1.
First five books―Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy―are
called 'Pentateuch' or 'Torah'. They were attributed to
Moses
who belonged to ca. 14-13th century BC.
But no portion of the OT had been committed to writing until ca. 4
centuries
after him, except perhaps a song, 'the Song of Deborah'.

Some
Types of CorruptionIn
the Text of the OT

Some excerpts are being quoted below from some
authorities to
afford the reader a first hand knowledge. Encyclopaedia Britannica, under
the
article 'Bible', explains that the books of the
Bible are younger by almost 1,000 years than its earliest text and during
this
gap [i.e.
prior tothe
2nd century
AD],
owing to various causes, a larger number of corruptions indisputably were
introduced into the Hebrew text:

The form in which the Hebrew text of the OT is
presented in
most manuscripts and printed editions is that of the Masoretic text, the
date
of which is usually placed somewhere between the 6th and
8th
centuries AD. It is probable that the present text became fixed as early
as
the 2nd century AD [i.e. ca. one thousand four hundred years
after
Moses], but even this early date
leaves a long interval between the original
autographs of the OT writers and the present text. Since the fixing of
the
Masoretic text [the 2nd century AD] the task of preserving
and
transmitting the sacred books has been carried out with the greatest
care and
fidelity, with the result that the text has undergone practically no
change of
real importance; but before that date [the 2nd century
AD],
owing to various causes, a larger number of corruptions indisputably
were
introduced into the Hebrew text. Originally the text consisted
only of
consonants, since the Hebrew language had an alphabet without vowels. It
is
also likely that in the earliest texts the words and sentences were not
divided[stress added].
The
evolution of the Masoretic text was an attempt to make up for both these
deficiencies. It supplied vowels by adding marks to the consonantal
text, and
it divided the words and sentences. For many centuries it was believed
that
these vowel points formed part of the original text; some theologians
argued
that the points were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But subsequently
research
has proved beyond doubt that they are younger by almost 1,000 years than
the
text itself.2

The Encyclopedia Britannica asserts that the
credibility of
even the Massoretic text is not above board and it is obvious that the
text has
been tampered with in some places:

On the basis of a variety of evidence it is possible
to
show that the Masoretic text is not a completely reliable index to the
readings of the autographs of the OT. Even a superficial comparison
between
its readings and the Septuagint translation discloses many passages in
which
the translators of the OT into Greek ascribed different vowels to the
consonantal text or divided the words differently from the way they are
now
divided in the Hebrew text [stress added]. In other passages they
simply
had another text before them. Considering that the Septuagint
translation
antedates the Masoretes by so long a span, we are forced to admit that
the
Hebrew text underlying it sometimes comes closer to the original reading
of a
particular passage than does the Masoretic. Other evidence, too, renders
an
uncritical acceptance of Masoretic readings impossible; it is obvious
that the
text has been tampered with in some places. (...).3

According this article of the Enc. Britannica the case
of the
Septuagint (LXX) is also
very
disappointing. Some of its texts are confused:

What complicates the task is, among other things, the
sorry
state of the Septuagint text itself. Parts of it are well attested and
may
form the basis for judgements about the Hebrew, but other parts are so
confused textually that in some instances scholars are inclined to posit
two
or more translations. After all, without a reliable text of the
translation,
the translation cannot very well be used to emend the text of the
original.
What is more, a study of the Septuagint also reveals many passages in
which
the translators purposely paraphrased the text or changed its meaning
when the
original was either embarrassing to them or unclear; for example, certain concrete terms in Hebrew are translated into
abstract terms in Greek to avoid the charge of anthropomorphism.
(...).4

The Encyclopedia Britannica writes that the Dead Sea
Scrolls
provide the evidence of the existence of several textual traditions even
in
Hebrew:

They [The
Dead Sea
Scrolls]make clear
the
existence of several textual traditions even in Hebrew; they have
therefore
made important contributions to the textual criticism of the OT, but
they have not solved its fundamental problem. Barring a major discovery
of
manuscript materials, this problem is probably insoluble, and the best
that
can be achieved is an approximation of the text of the OT.5

To sum up the above article of the Encyclopedia
Britannica,
it is presented as follows. Attempt has been made to remain as close to
the
writer's words as possible:

Probably
the present text became fixed [canonized] in the 2nd
century AD
[ca. 1400 years after Moses].

Before
the 2nd century AD,
owing to various causes, a number of corruptions indisputably were
introduced into the Hebrew text.

The
original text consisted only of consonants, without vocalization or
vowel
signs, which was a large source of confusion.

The
words and sentences were not divided in the earlier texts.

Even
a superficial comparison between the Heb. Masoretic text and its Greek
translation (Septuagint or the LXX) discloses that in many passages of
the
LXX the words are differently divided from the present Hebrew
text.

As
the texts have obviously been tampered with in some places, the task
of
arriving at a reliable text is very complicated.

The
sorry state of the Septuagint text itself also complicates the
task.

The
translators of the LXX purposely paraphrased the text or changed its
meaning
when the original was either embarrassing to them or
unclear.

The
Dead Sea Scrollsmake
clear the existence of several textual traditions even in
Hebrew.

The
best that can be achieved is an approximation of the text of the
OT.

AD 1988
Ed of
the Encyclopedia Britannica has afforded a 104
page article on 'Biblical Literature'. It has explained the
theme
under the sub-heading 'Textual
Criticism: Manuscript Problems.'Some of the relevant passages are reproduced hereunder. It asserts
that
the vowel signs were introduced to the Bible
text between the 7th
and 9th centuries CE:

The text of the Hebrew printed Bible
consists of consonants, vowel signs, and cantillation (musical
or tonal) marks. The two latter components are the product of the school
of
Masoretes (Traditionalists)
that
flourished in Tiberias (in
Palestine) between the 7th and 9th centuries CE. The
history
of the bare consonantal text stretches back into hoary antiquity and can
be
only partially traced. (....); there is much evidence for the existence
of a
period when more than one Hebrew text-form of a given book was current.
In
fact, both the variety of witnesses and the degree of textual divergence
between them increase in proportion to their antiquity.6

According to the writer of this article of the
Encyclopedia
Britannica, the biblical textmust
have endured a long period of oral transmission before its committal to
writing.

In the case of some biblical literature, there exists
the
real possibility, though it cannot be proven, that it must have endured
a long
period of oral transmission before its committal to writing. In the
interval,
the material might well have undergone abridgement, amplification, and
alteration at the hands of transmitters so that not only would the
original
have been transformed, but the process of transmission would have
engendered
more than one recension from the very beginning of its written, literary
career. (....), the possibility of inadvertent and deliberate change,
something that effects all manuscript copying, was always present.

The evidence that such, indeed, took place is rich
and
varied. First there are numerous divergences between the many passages
duplicated within the Hebrew Bible
itself Æ’Â¢Â¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Â¬Â¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Â
e.g. the parallels between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. (...). There are
also
rabbinic traditions about the text-critical activities of the scribes
(soferim)
in Second Temple times. These tell of divergent readings in
Temple
scrolls of the Pentateuch, of official "book-correctors" in Jerusalem,
of
textual emendations on the part of scribes, and of the utilization of
sigla
(signs or abbreviations) for marking suspect readings and
disarranged
verses. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the pre-Masoretic versions of the
OT made
directly from the Hebrew originals are all replete with divergences from
current Masoretic Bibles. Finally, the scrolls from the Judaean desert,
especially those from the caves of Qumran, have provided, at least,
illustrations of many of the scribal processes by which deviant texts
came
into being. The variants and their respective causes may be classified
as
follows: aurally conditioned, visual in origin, exegetical, and
deliberate.7

According to the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' the
"Problems
resulting from Aural Conditioning", "Problems Visual in Origin", "Exegetical
Problems","Exegetical
Problems," and "Deliberate Changes" are as follows:

Aural Conditioning would result from a
mishearing of similar sounding consonants when a text is dictated to the
copyist.Negative particle
lo',
for example, could be confused with the prepositional lo, "to
him,"
or guttural h~et with spirant kaf so thatah~ "brother" might be written for akh
"surely."

Problems Visual in Origin. The
confusion of
graphically similar letters, whether in paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic script,
is
another cause for variations. Thus, the prepositions bet ("in")
and
kaf ("like") are interchanged in the Masoretic and Dead Sea
Scroll
texts of Isaiah.

The Order of Letters also might be
Inverted.
Such 'Metathesis', as it is called, appears in
Psalms, in
which qirbam ("their inward thoughts") stands for qibram
("their grave").

Dittography, or the inadvertent
duplication
of one or more letters or words, also occurs, as, for example, in the
DSS text
of Isaiah and in the Masoretic text of Ezkiel.

Haplography, or the accidental omission
of a
letter or word that occurs twice in close proximity, can be found, for
example, in the DSS text of Isaiah.

Homoeoteleuton occurs when two separate
phrases or lines have identical endings and the copyist's eye slips
from one
to the other and omits the intervening words. A comparison of the
Masoretic
text I Samuel, chapter 14
verse 41, with the
Septuagint
and the Vulgate versions clearly identifies such an aberration.

Exegetical
problems.
This third category does not involve any consonantal alteration but
results
solely from the different possibilities inherent in the consonantal
spelling.
Thus the lack of vowel signs may permit the word DBR
to be read as a verb DiBeR("he spoke," as in the Masoretic text of Hosea) or as a noun
DeBaR
("the word of," as in the Septuagint). The absence of word dividers
could
lead to different divisions of the consonants. Thus, BBQRYMin Amos could be understood as either BaBeQaRYM("with oxen," as in the Masoretic text) or as BaBaQaR
YaM ("the sea with an ox"). The incorrect solution by later
copyists of abbreviations is another source of error. That such occurred
is
proved by a comparison of the Hebrew text with the Septuagint version
in, for
example, II Samuel, chapter 1
verse
12; Ezkiel, chapter
12
verse 23; and Amos,
chapter 3
verse 9.

Deliberate
Changes.
Apart from mechanical alterations of a text, many variants must have
been
consciously introduced by scribes, some by way of glossingÆ’Â¢Â¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Â¬Â¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Âi.e.
the insertion of a more common word to explain a rare oneÆ’Â¢Â¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Â¬Â¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Âand
others by explanatory comments incorporated into the text. Furthermore,
a
scribe who had before him two manuscript of a single work containing
variant
readings, and unable to decide between them, might incorporate both
readings
into his scroll and thus create a 'conflate
text'.8

After pointing out the forms of corruption in the text
of the
OT, the writer of the article describes the difficulties in the
reconstruction
of the original text:

The
situation so
far described poses two major scholarly problems. The first involves the
history of the Hebrew text, the second deals with attempts to
reconstruct its
"original" form.

As to when and how a single text type gained hegemony
and
then displaced all others, it is clear that the early and widespread
public
reading of the scriptures in the synagogues of Palestine, Alexandria,
and
Babylon was bound to lead to a heightened sensitivity of the idea of a
"correct" text and to give prestige to the particular text form selected
for reading. Also, the natural conservatism of ritual would tend to
perpetuate
the form of such a text. The letter of Aristeas, a document
derived
from the middle of the 2nd century BCE that describes the
origin of
the Septuagint, recognizes the distinction between carelessly copied
scrolls
of the Pentateuch and an authoritative Temple scroll in the hands of the
high
priest in Jerusalem. The rabbinic traditions about the textual criticism
of
Temple-based scribes actually reflect a movement towards the final
stabilization of the text in the Second Temple period. (...).

In regard to an attempt to recover the original text
of a
biblical passage―especially
an unintelligible one―in the light of variants among different
versions
and manuscripts [MSS] and known causes of corruption, it should be
understood
that all reconstruction must necessarily be conjectural and perforce
tentative
because of the irretrievable loss of the original edition. But not all
textual
difficulties need presuppose underlying mutilation. (...)
Furthermore,
each version, indeed each biblical book within it, has its own history,
and
the translation techniques and stylistic characteristics must be
examined and
taken into account. (...). None of this means that a Hebrew MS, an
ancient
version, or a conjectural emendation cannot yield a reading superior to
that
in the received Hebrew text. It does mean, however, that these tools
have to
be employed with great caution and proper methodology.

Texts and manuscripts. Sources of the
Septuagint.
A Greek translation of the OT, known as the Septuagint
[LXX] because there allegedly were 70
or 72
translators, six
from each of the 12
tribes of
Israel, and designated LXX, is a composite of the work of many
translators
labouring for well over 100
years.
It was made directly from Hebrew originals that frequently differed
considerably from the present Masoretic text. Apart from other
limitations
attendant upon the use of a translation for such purposes, the
identification
of the parent text used by the Greek translators is still an unsettled
question [stress
added].9

The salient features of the above quotation are being
afforded hereunder as a recapitulation to make the concept clear. Attempt
has
been made to remain as close to the writer's words as possible:

Vowel
signs were introduced into the Heb. Bibleby
Masoretes between the 7th and 9th centuries
CE
[AD].
They did not exist before it.

More
than one Hebrew Text-forms of the books of the Bibleexisted
for a long time.

Some
Biblebooks
must have endured a long period of oral transmission before their
committal
to writing.

Between
its oral transmission and committal to writing the material might well
have
undergone abridgement, amplification, and
alteration
at the hands of the transmitters.

The
possibility of inadvertent and deliberate change was always present.
The
variants and their respective causes may be classified as follows:
(a)
Aurally conditioned; (b)
Visual in origin; (c)
Exegetical; and (d)
Deliberate.

Problems
resulting from aural conditioning occurred due to
mishearing
of similar sounding consonants when a text was dictated to a
copyist.

Problems
visual in origin:
(a)
The confusion of graphically similar letters, e.g.
'B'
and 'K',
which respectively mean 'in'
and 'like';
(b)
Metathesis, i.e. inversion in the order of letters in a
word,
e.g. 'qibram'
[their
grave]
was changed as 'qirbam'
[their
inward thoughts];
(c)
Dittography, i.e. Duplication of one or more letters or
words;
(d)
Haplography, i.e. Omission of a letter or word that
occurs
twice in close proximity; (e)
Homoeoteleuton, which occurs when two separate phrases
or
lines have identical endings and the copyist's eye slips from one
to the
other and omits the intervening words.

Exegetical
Problems:
(a)
due to different possibilities inherent in the consonantal spelling in
the
absence of the vowel signs; (b)
the incorrect solution of the abbreviations by the later
copyists.

Deliberate
Changes:
Glosses and explanatory comments consciously introduced by the scribes
and
subsequently incorporated in the text.

In
regard
to an attempt to recover the original text of a biblical
passage―especially
an unintelligible one―in the light of variants among different
versions and MSS and known causes of corruption, it should be
understood
that all reconstruction must necessarily be conjectural and perforce
tentative because of the irretrievable loss of the original
edition.

The Cambridge History of the Bible
is a reliable reference book and an excellent source of
knowledge. It has dealt with the theme in a number of articles. Some
excerpts
from only one of them, 'The Old Testament Text', written by
Shemaryahu Talmon, Professor of Bible, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
are
afforded below:

Any account of the development of the text prior to
c. 300
B.C., i.e. in the
Persian period, not to mention the periods of the Babylonian exile or
the
first Temple, must perforce rely upon conjecture and, at best, upon
deductions
and analogies derived from later literature and later manuscripts.
(....).

The absence
of vowelsmeant
that many a Hebrew consonant group could be differently
pronounced
[stress added], and from this resulted the fact that a variety of
meanings could be attached to one and the same word in the original.
When
ultimately vowels were introduced into the Hebrew text of the
Bible, these pronunciation variants
sometimes became the basis of variae
lectiones.10

The lack of any system of interpunctuation in written
Hebrew at that time was another factor which gave rise to different
interpretations of many passages. These diverging interpretations may
also in
the end turn up as variants in versions which are based on fully
interpuctuated manuscripts. (...).11

The learned writer of this article asserts that
"In fact not one single verse of this ancient literature has come
to us
in an original MS, written by a biblical author or by a contemporary of
his, or
even by a scribe who lived immediately after the time of the
author."

There is probably no other extant text, ancient or
modern,
which is witnessed to by so many diverse types of sources, and the
history of
which is so difficult to elucidate as that of the text of the OT. The
task of
the scholar who endeavours to trace the antecedents of the text as we
know it
today is further complicated by the fact that he is concerned with
sacred
literature, every word of which is considered to be divinely inspired
and
therefore infallible. However, having been handed down by human
agents for
more than two millennia, the text of the scriptures suffered from the
shortcomings of man. It becomes faulty to a greater or less degree and
even at
times distorted. It must therefore be subjected to scholarly critical
analysis
like any other ancient literary document [stress
added].

The OT books were handed down, as has been said, not
only
in their original Hebrew or, in some passages, Aramaic tongue, but also
in a
variety of translations into Semitic or non-Semitic languages. All these
textual traditions, as we know them today, differ from one another. What
is
more, even the witnesses to one tradition, in the original language or
in a
translation, often diverge from one another. As a result, the scholar
who
takes a synoptic view of all the sources at his disposal is confronted
with a
plethora of variae
lectiones
in the extant versions of the OT books. This fact obviously does not
become
apparent in the common editions of the OT, in Hebrew or in translation,
which
are in every-day use. However, it should be borne in mind that the
printed
editions represent the end of a long chain of textual development and of
editorial activities which were aimed at unifying the sacred texts.
These late
editions can in no way be taken to exhibit faithfully the autographs of
the
biblical authors. In fact not one single verse of this ancient
literature
has come to us in an original MS, written by a biblical author or by a
contemporary of his, or even by a scribe who lived immediately after the
time
of the author. Even the very earliest manuscripts at our disposal, in
Hebrew
or in any translation language, are removed by hundreds of years from
the date
of origin of the literature recorded in them [stress
added].

Even a cursory perusal of the sources available
immediately
reveals that not one tradition and not one MS is without fault.
Each and
every one patently exhibits errors which crept into it during the long
period
of its transmission in the oral stage, when written by hand, and even,
though
to a lesser degree, when handed down in the form of printed
books. [stress
added]12

In spite of all his above findings the writer of the
article
has stressed that these errors and textual divergences between the
versions
materially effect the intrinsic message only in relatively few instances.
He
asserts:

It should, however, bestressed that these
errors and
textual divergences between the versions materially effect the intrinsic
message only in relatively few instances. Nevertheless this may occur.
Some
examples of variants significant from a theological or ideo-historical
angle
may in fact be found. In most instances the differences are of a
linguistic or
grammatical nature, which resulted either from the unpremeditated impact
of
the linguistic peculiarities of successive generations of copyists, or
from
their intentional attempts to adjust the wording of scripture to
changing
concepts of linguistic and stylist norms.13

The writer of the article has admitted that the older
the
biblical MSS be, the wider is the over-all range of textual divergence
between
them. He says:

The above remarks do not, however, absolve us from
accounting for the fact that the further back the textual tradition of
the OT
is followed, i.e. the older the
biblical MSS perused, and the more ancient the records which come to the
knowledge of scholars, the wider is the over-all range of textual
divergence
between them. The existing variants, therefore, cannot be simply
explained as
having arisen solely from the cumulative effect of imperfect copying and
recopying of the text over many centuries. The very earliest biblical
MSS
known―and
in this respect the biblical scrolls from Qumran are of decisive
importance
― exhibit practically all types of variants found in later
witnesses. 14

According to the learned writer of the article, Prof.
Shemaryahu Talmon, it is almost impossible to trace back the original text
of
some book of the OT:

Even if by retracing the steps of textual development
we
may be able to arrive at the Ur-text15
of this version or that, the question still remains open whether we
shall ever
be able to recover the ipsissima verba16
of a biblical author.17

Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon points out that originally
oral variations may ultimately turn up as textual variants. He further
states
that by the early third
century B.C.,
the written transmission of biblical literature had completely replaced
the oral
tradition:

It should, however, be pointed out that originally
oral
variations may ultimately turn up as textual variants between duplicate
texts
within the OT. Such instances are found in two versions of one and the
same
Psalm embedded in a book of the Former Prophets and Psalms (e.g. 2 Sam.
22 =
Ps. 18), in Chronicles and Psalms (e.g. 1 Chron. 16:8-36 = Ps. 105:1-15;
96:
1-13; 106: 1, 47-8), or in the Bookof Psalms itself (e.g. Ps. 31: 2-4b =
71:
1-3; 60: 7-14 = 108: 8-14). Again, we meet with two or even three
presentations of a piece of biblical literature in parallel passages in
the
Former and Latter Prophets (2 Kings 18:13 - 20:19 = Isa. 36:1 - 38:22 =
2
Chron. 32:1-20;2 Kings
25:1-22 =
Jer. 39:1-10 = 52:4-27; 2 Kings 25:27-30 = Jer. 52:31-4). To some extent
also
quotations from an earlier book in a later one may exhibit textual
variants.
However, in these cases literary license and a possible tendency towards
intentional variation or rephrasing on the part of the writer who is
borrowing
may lie at the root of the present divergences. (...). The definite
shift of
emphasis from oral to written transmission of the biblical books would
thus
have become clearly apparent during the period of Return, i.e. at the
end of
the sixth and in the fifth century B.C., in what, from a wider
historical
viewpoint, may be termed the Persian period. (....). at this stage [i.e.
the
early third century B.C.], the written transmission of biblical
literature
finally and, to all intents and purposes, completely replaced oral
tradition.18

The writer of the article under study, Prof. Shemaryahu
Talmon asserts that while translating the Hebrew text of the OT neither
proper
care had been observed nor authorised supervision:

At first, the translation of the scriptures into
Aramaic
was most probably sporadic and undirected. (...). Lacking authorised
supervision, the resulting translation often assumed the form of a
somewhat
free paraphrase of the original, rather than of an accurate rendering
into the
translator's language. But even when a word-by-word translation was
attempted, divergence from the Hebrew Vorlage19
was inevitable. Translation from one language into another always
produces
inaccuracies since there is no exact correspondence between the
vocabulary and
the syntax of the two, even if they belong to the same language family.
Moreover, the probably divergent first renderings of the Hebrew
scriptures
into Aramaic were based on originals which may well have differed among
themselves to a smaller or larger degree, for reasons set out above.

The same considerations apply with additional force
to the
translation of the OT books into Greek, a non-Semitic language. This
translation was required, for reasons similar to those mentioned above,
by
Jews living within the sphere of Hellenistic culture, whether in
Ptolemaic
Egypt, where the Jewish community of Alexandria was the focal point, or
in
Palestine. Tradition maintains that in this case official non-Jewish
agents
also showed interest in rendering the OT into Greek, and instigated a
properly
supervised scholarly translation. This tradition will be further
discussed
subsequently. The Pseudepigraphic letter of Aristeas credits King
Ptolemy II
Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.)
with having inaugurated the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek by
seventy sages. As a result of their concerted effort, the Septuagint,
commonly
designated LXX, was in the Pentateuch less open to the controlled impact
of
translators' idiosyncrasies. It contains indeed fewer deviations
from the
Hebrew text here than in the renderings of the other books. But it is
still
open to discussion that this reputedly official undertaking is to be
considered the first attempt at translating the OT or parts of it into
Greek
and to have provided the impetus to further ventures of the same kind,
or
whether it should rather be viewed as an event which crowned a long
series of
previous diffuse attempts with a standardised version. (...). The
ensuing
embarrassing textual diversity of the versions of the sacred books soon
called
for the application of the methods of textual analysis and textual
criticism
to remedy this deficiency. As stated above, the ground for this new
approach
had been laid by the conjunction of scholarly norms borrowed from the
Greeks
with the care for the accurate transmission of the inspired literature
which
had been developed within Judaism.20

The writer notes that deviations of the Samaritan
Hebrew
text―rediscovered by Pietro della Valle in 1616 and printed in 1632
by
Morinus in Paris alongside the other versions―from the Massoretic
text
were estimated at about six thousand:

The Samaritan
text
[the Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch was rediscovered by Pietro della Valle
in
1616]
was made available to scholars shortly afterwards when Morinus first
printed
it in 1632 alongside the other versions in the Paris Polyglot. Its
many
deviations from the Massoretic text, later estimated at about six
thousand,
were soon observed[stress
added]. It was further
established that approximately one third [i.e.
about two thousand] of
these variae
lectionescould
be traced also in the LXX. This concurrence enhanced the doubts which
had been
raised concerning the veracity of the Massoretic text. It was maintained
that,
having been revised by the rabbis after the destruction of the Temple,
in the
first half of the second century A.D., it did not represent the
ipsissima
verba21
of the divinely inspired message, but a faulty text, resulting from
incuria
librariorum or from wilful malicious tampering with it on the part
of the
Jews. (...). The rich crop of individual variants which were recorded in
the
apparatus of these works at first sight appeared to disprove the
compactness
and stability of the Hebrew text. However, closer scrutiny more and more
strengthened the conviction that almost all of them can and should be
classified as intentional or unintentional secondary scribal
alterations.
(....), the Greek tradition was deemed especially valuable for the
purpose of
purging the OT of anti-Christ falsifications which allegedly had been
introduced into the Massoretic text by the rabbis.22

The worthy writer has also elucidated the impact of the
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are the oldest extant MSS of
Bible, on the credibility of the text of the OT.He asserts, 'The
Hebrew
scrolls from Qumran prove beyond doubt the actual existence of variant
readings
in the biblical books of the Hellenistic or Roman periods.'
He concludes, 'the very notion of an exclusive
textus
receptus had not yet taken root at Qumran:

This (the First Isaiah Scroll, IQIsa),
like many
other MSS from Qumran, precedes the oldest extant MSS of any part of the
OT in
the Hebrew Massoretic tradition by more than a millennium, and those in
Greek
or any other translation by several centuries. (...). [p.183] Because of
their
diversity, the kaleidoscope of the textual traditions exhibited in them,
their
concurrence here with one, here with another of the known versions, or
again
in other cases their exclusive textual individuality, the biblical MSS
found
at Qumran, in their totality, present in a nutshell, as it were, the
intricate
and variegated problems of the Hebrew text and versions. (....) [p.
184ff].

The coexistence of diverse text types in the
numerically,
geographically and temporally restricted Covenanters' community, the
fact
that some or most of the conflicting MSS had very probably been copied
in the
Qumran scriptorium and that no obvious attempts at the suppression of
divergent MSS or of individual variants can be discovered in that
voluminous
literature, proves beyond doubt that the very notion of an exclusive
textus
receptus had not yet taken root at Qumran [stress added].
(p.185)

We have no reason to doubt that this
'liberal' attitude
towards divergent textual traditions of the OT prevailed also in
'normative' Jewish circles of the second and first centuries
B.C.
According to rabbinic testimony, even the model codices that were kept
in the
Temple precincts―the
'aza$ra$h―not
only exhibited divergent readings, but represented conflicting
text-types.
[p.185]
(...).
The difference consists in the fact that in the end the Temple codices
were
collated, probably in the first century A.D.
and,
what is more important, that rabbinic Judaism ultimately established a
model
text and strove to banish deviant MSS from circulation.
[p.185,86]
(...). However, even the latest MSS from Qumran which provide evidence
of the
local history of the text in the crucial period, the last decades before
the
destruction of the Temple, do not give the slightest indication that
even an
incipient textus receptus emerged there, or that the very notion
of a
model recension was ever conceived by the Covenanters.23

The writer says that mostly the textual variations involved are of the simplest and most common
types:

In a majority of cases the textual variations
involved are
of the simplest and most common types: interchange of graphically
similar
letters or auricularly close consonants; haplography or dittography;
continuous writing of separate words or division of one word into two;
plene24
or defective spelling (as in the cases adduced above); metathesis;
differences
of vocalisation, sometimes entailing a change of verb conjugations.25

He observes thatthe
deliberate alterations into the text of scripture for various reasons of
style
and dogma have been incorporated in both: the MSS of Qumran and the
Jewish MSS
alike. He further says that the development
of biblical text-transmission may be considered prototypes of phenomena
that
emerge concurrently and subsequently in the text-history of the OT in
Jewish
and Christian tradition:

(....), the deliberate insertion of textual
alterations
into scripture for various reasons of style and dogma, and uncontrolled
infiltration of haphazard changes due to linguistic peculiarities of
copyist
or to their characteristic concepts and ideas, which may be observed in
the
wider transmission of the text, have their counterparts in the
'Qumran Bible' [p.190]
[stress added]. (...). We thus encounter in the Qumran writings
development of
biblical text-transmission which may be considered prototypes of
phenomena
that emerge concurrently and subsequently in the text-history of the OT
in
Jewish and Christian tradition, albeit in less concentrated form, and at
different grades of variations.
[p.190]
(....).

It is important to note that the worthy writer admits
the
actual existence of variant readings in the biblical books:

The Hebrew scrolls from Qumran prove beyond doubt the
actual existence of variant readings in the biblical books of the
Hellenistic
or Roman periods [stress added] which until their discovery had been
beyond
the scope of textual research proper.26

To conclude and
sum
up the esteemed observations of Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon, Professor
of
Bible, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, they are presented as
under:

Any
account of the development of the text prior to c. 300 B.C.
rely
upon mere conjecture.

The
absence of vowels meant that many Hebrew consonant groups could be
differently pronounced and, consequently, a variety of meanings and
interpretations could be attached to one and the same word in the
original.
When vowels were introduced into the Hebrew text of the Bible,
they sometimes became the basis of variae
lectiones.

Having
been handed down by human agents for more than two millennia, the text
of
the Scriptures suffered from the shortcomings of man. It becomes
faulty to a
greater or less degree and even at times distorted.

In
fact not one single verse has come to us in an original MS, written by
a
biblical author or by a contemporary of his, or even by a scribe who
lived
immediately after the time of the author.

Even
a cursory perusal of the sources reveals that not one tradition or MS
is
without fault. Each and every one patently exhibits errors which crept
into
it during the long period of its transmission in the oral stage, when
written by hand, and to a lesser degree, when handed down in the form
of
printed books.

These
errors and textual divergences effect the intrinsic message only in
relatively few instances.

The
older the biblical MSS be, the wider is the over-all range of textual
divergence between them.

It
is almost impossible to trace back the original text of some book of
the OT.

Originally
oral variations may ultimately turn up as textual
variants.

While
translating the Hebrew text of the OT neither proper care had been
observed
nor authorised supervision.

Deviations
of the Samaritan Hebrew text from the Massoretic text were estimated
at
about six thousand.

The
Hebrew scrolls from Qumran prove beyond doubt the actual existence of
variant readings in the biblical books of the Hellenistic or Roman
periods.

Textual
variations involved are of the simplest and most common types:
interchange
of graphically similar letters or auricularly close consonants;
haplography
or dittography; continuous writing of separate words or division of
one word
into two; plene or defective spelling; metathesis; differences
of
vocalisation.

"Peake's
Commentary on the Bible" is a renowned and reliable work. One of its
"Introductory Articles to the
OT" is "Canon and Text of the OT", written by B. J. Roberts. The writer
observes that "the text transmission of the LXX was far from strict":

From the very outset, and certainly from a very early
time
in the Christian era, the text transmission of the LXX was far from
strict:
indeed from the early 3rd cent. A.D.
we have a comment by Origen, the first scholar, in our sense of the
word,
in the history of Christendom, that the MSS showed the greatest
divergence,
due both to scribal errors and, what is worse, to revision of the text
and
additions and omissions of 'whatever seems right' to the
revisers[stress
added]. (...), the Church in various areas adopted different
recensions
of the LXX, which further added to the chaos. After the Edict of Milan
in A.D.
313 and the consequent acceptance of Christianity by Constantine as an
empire
religion, there was an attempt to secure for the OT, just as for the NT,
a
semi-standardisation of the text; but one need only look at the Greek
Codices
of the Greek Bible which were produced as a result of the Edict, to
realise that
there was very little consistency used in the production of such a text,
and
still less success in establishing the textual minutiae.27

Jerome was commissioned by the then Pope to produce a
Latin
rendering of the whole of the Bible, who accomplished his work, Vulgate,
in the late 4th and early 5th
cent. BC.
B. J. Roberts observes in the same article:

(...), he [Jerome] stressed that, in translating ,
'if we
follow the syllables we lose the understanding', and there are
innumerable
instances of departure from the Heb. Text to accommodate Christian dogma
and
interpretation [stress
added].28

The same
writer
says that there are numerous scribal errors and textual divergences from
the LXX
and other MSS:

(...), the Isa. A document, which contains the whole
of Isa.
apart from a few minor lacunae due to wear and tear of the MS. It was
the
first biblical MS of the scrolls to be published, and even now it is by
far
the best known. The average person who reads about the Dead Sea
Scrolls―and
his number is legion―is
reassured by the authorities that the scroll agrees to a remarkable
degree
with the text of the standard Heb. Bible, and there is
no need to dispute this verdict, at least as far as the average reader
is
concerned. But textual criticism is a detailed study, and from this
standpoint
it is quite misleading to emphasise this very great measure of
agreement.
Apart from scribal errors which are numerous, the following divergences
stand
out: (a) the scroll, especially in the second half, presents a
widely
divergent orthography and grammar from that of the classical text;
(b)
there are numerous divergent readings, some of which correspond to known
alternatives, e.g. in the LXX and in the Kere and
Kethibh
variants, whereas others were previously unknown; (c) in some
instances
the proper names agree not with the form they have in the common Isa.
text but
with that in later books, e.g. Chr. That is, the text in MS A might be
regarded as a recension, approximating to the classical form, but by no
means
identical with it.29

It is remarkable to note that one of the reasons of
errors
and misunderstandings in the biblical texts was the absence of any kind of
vocalization system in the Hebrew script. It was only after the advent and
under
the influence of Isla%m that it was introduced in the Bible
texts, as the writer asserts:

Some time in the 7th cent., probably under
the
indirect influence of Islam and of developments in the Syriac language,
a
rough and ready beginning was made to vocalise the consonantal text by
the
addition of vowel signs.30

The
text of the Bible
was changed both (a) due to
deliberate alterations by the scribes and (b) due to
accidental/involuntary
errors.

As
regards the first type, i.e.deliberate
alterationsthe
writer asserts:

Long before the text assumed its present form it was
modified for reasons known to us and unknown. Glosses were added,
explanatory,
pious, habit (e.g. the adding of the words 'of the covenant' to
'ark'
in many places), and others. Unfortunately, some commentaries in the
past have
shown an undue enthusiasm for this class of textual corruption, and any
phrase
in the text which might contradict a preconceived theory was apt to be
dismissed as a gloss: on the other hand it is generally recognised that,
e.g.
the book of Ezek. contains numerous instances of the glossator's
work. Other
early interferences were made by scribes who expunged the names of
foreign
deities and substituted for them the word bosheth
('shame'), e.g.
Mephibosheth for Meribaal.

From the period which followed the fixing of the
consonantal text we have Rabbinic evidence of textual criticism.
Tikkune
ha-Sopherim (emendations of the scribes), mentioned in
Rabbinic
commentaries, refer to attempts to avoid anthropomorphisms in the text
by a
change of suffix, in as many as eighteen passages. 'Ittureha-Sophcrim
(omissions of the scribes) refer to grammatical points.
Sopherin
are marginal notes inserted in the Massoroth to indicate that the form
is
'unexpected' and should probably be replaced by another word.
Nekuddoth
(puncta extra-ordinaria) are dots placed over words in ten passages
in the
Pentateuch which were queried by Massoretes on textual or exegetical
grounds,
and the fact that they are frequently mentioned in the Mishnah and other
Rabbinic writings shows that they were commonly acknowledged. Again the
retention of Kere and Kethubh
variants
shows Massoretic concern for textual criticism.

There are other places where scribes can be held
responsible for textual corruption. There are innumerable instances
where a
vocalisation is queried on the basis of an LXX reading, and it lies to
hand to
suggest that if any case is to be made for a 'recension' in the
Massoretic
text, it is in the interpretation given to it by the Massoretes
responsible
for the Tiberian vocalisation. On the other hand, it is sometimes
thought
these late Massoretes confused the meaning of a passage because they had
failed to understand it and consequently pointed it wrongly.31

The
possibility of involuntary
scribal errors is well demonstrated by the very carelessly written
Qumran
Scroll 1QIsa, and in a recent introduction to the study,
The
Text of the OT, by E. Wurthwein (Eng.
Tr. P. R. Ackroyd, 1957), very good use is made of the MS to demonstrate
the
types and classes of error in the Heb. MT. The only caveat which might
be
entered is that1QIsa
is not
a Massoretic MS nor does it belong to Judaism but rather to a sect, and
perhaps it is not fair to the Massoretes to put them to this undeserved
disrepute. A better source would be the fragments from the Cairo Geniza,
where
the same types of error occur, but the incidence is not nearly so
common.

There have
been
useful manuals of textual corruption published―one
in English by J. Kennedy (ed. by N. Levison), An aid to the Textual
Amendment of the OT (1928). It discusses such errors as confusion of
similar letters, in both the archaic and Aramaic scripts, e.g.
Beth and
Kaph, Daleth and Resh; inversion of letters;
haplography
(writing a letter once where it should be repeated, or omission of a
word
which is similar to the adjacent word); dittography (the reverse of the
previous error); homoeoteleuton (where phrases and even passages have
been
omitted from between two similar words or even endings of words). How
such
omissions could have taken place in such official texts as the prototype
of
the present Biblia Hebraica and all the MSS supporting it defies
explanation, because the Rabbis were strict in the matter of checking
and
correcting standard MSS, but it is a fact that they exist. For instance
in I
Sam. 14:41a lengthy passage has disappeared by homoeoteleuton with the
word
'Israel', which occurs immediately before the beginning of the
lost
passage and which ends the passage.

Other assumed
errors or sources of error are disputed among scholars. It is sometimes
thought that abbreviations, particularly in the divine names, coupled
with the
wrong division of words constitute a possible error. That such
abbreviations
occur in the Geniza fragments is demonstrable, but it is still open to
argue
that they did not occur in more official MSS. Another debatable point is
whether or not MSS were copied by dictation. This could have been a
common
source of corruption and would account for the numerous variations
between
similarly sounding gutturals; but, again, there is scepticism among
scholars
on the possibility.

The final
note,
however, in any dicscussion of textual errors must be one of caution.
The
prestige of the Massoretic scribal activity, increasingly
recognisedof recent years, makes the a priori likelihood of errors
less
than was previously believed. Increased study of Hebrew philology and
semantics, and better acquaintance with cognate languages show that
departure
from the accepted text is frequently hazardous, and fresh information,
particularly from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Cairo Geniza, makes the
history
of the text not only more interesting but enhances its standing as a
text-form, the early standardisation of which made it unique among all
textual
transmissions.32

Almost similar views have been expressed by the
Dummelow's
Commentary in its introductory articles in a different way:

For many centuries no vowel signs were used at all,
and the
consonants were written without any spaces between words. The scribes
who
copied were undoubtedly very careful, but sometimes the same consonant
was
written twice. Sometimes, of two consonants of the same form one was
omitted;
or a word might occur twice in one verse, and the scribe going on to the
second as he copied the first would omit the intervening words. About
the
third century A.D. certain consonants began to be used to express
unchangeably
long vowels. This was called scriptio plena, i.e. full writing.
About
the middle of the sixth century when the Jews were much scattered, the
danger
arose that the proper pronunciation of Hebrew would be lost. A set of
scribes
called Masoretes, i.e. Traditionalists, introduced a complete system of
points
to indicate the vowels as traditionally pronounced.33

Encyclopedia
Americana has afforded 73
pages (p.647
to 719)
for Bible
and its related themes under different topics by different
writers. The topic of its 4th article is "Textual Criticism of
the
OT" which is written by J. Philip Hyatt, Vanderbilt University. The author
of
the article has also pointed out similar forms of corruptions in the text
of the
Bible:

The purpose of textual criticism is to reconstruct
the
original text of the OT. It frequently is called lower criticism,
to
distinguish it from higher criticism, which deals with
questions of authorship, date, source analysis, historical background,
and the
like.

This type of
criticism is not peculiar to Biblical studies. It must be practiced on
any
piece of literature that we wish to study seriously and that has not
come down
to us in a copy made by the author's own hand. There is a textual
criticism,
for example, of the plays of Shakespeare. The peculiarities of OT
textual
criticism arise from the nature of the Hebrew language and the history
of the
OT text.

The OT is
written
in Hebrew, with the exception of the following passages, which are in
the
closely related Aramaic language: Ezra 4:8to6:18;
7:12-26; Daniel2:4bto7:28;
and Jeremiah 10:11, and a few isolated words or expressions in Genesis. In
ancient
times these languages were written with consonants only, the
pronunciation of
vowels being preserved only by oral tradition[stress
added]. In time some of
the
vowels were indicated by the use of certain consonant letters (called
matres
lectionis), and eventually all vowels were marked by these or by
vowel
points. Certain of the letters of Hebrew and Aramaic are similar, either
in
appearance or in sound. For example, in the square script that came into
use
about 200 B.C.
the following pairs of letters are very similar in appearance and may
easily
be confused: D and
R,
B and K,
H and CH,
T and
CH. Certain letters may be readily confused in sound; there are two
K-sounds,
three S-sounds, and two T-sounds. In ancient times the words often were
not
divided in manuscripts, and verses were not separated as they are now.
These
features of the original languages of the OT have helped to make errors
possible in the transmission of its text.34

The same writer, J. Philip Hyatt, traces theHistory of the text as follows:

The books of the OT were written between 1000 and 100
BC.,
and the canon was closed toward the end on the 1st Christian
century. Not a single book has come down to the present in its
original,
autograph form [stress
added].
The earliest manuscripts are those generally known as the Dead Sea
Scrolls,
which were found in the caves of Wadi Qumran and Wadi Murabbaat and
elsewhere
in the desert region of Palestine near the Dead Sea. Complete scrolls or
fragments have been found of all books of the OT except Esther. Many are
from
the 1st and 2nd centuries B.C.
These manuscripts contain several difficult kinds of Hebrew text. Some
are
like the Greek Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch, while others are
very
similar to the Masoretic text, which is discussed below.

(...). It is probable, therefore, that a
"proto-
Masoretic" text was established by the year 100 A.D.
This was the result of a process extending over two or three centuries,
climaxed by needs that were felt
in
Judaism as the result of the rise of Christianity and the capture of
Jerusalem
by the Romans in 70 A.D.
Rabbi
Akiba may have been the leader in the final stage of this process.

For four centuries after Akiba the textual scholars
were
the Sopherim, the Scribes. While they were concerned mainly with
the
correct copying of the text, they were students of it as well. In
various ways
they sought to point out difficulties in the text: by the "extraordinary
points" placed above words in fifteen passages, which point out passages
that are doubtful in one respect or another; by the eighteen "emendation
of
the Scribes" (tiqqune ha-sophrim), most of which attempt to avoid
blasphemy against God; and by the Sebirin, which point out
"unexpected" forms. The Scribes made subdivisions in the text that
eventually became chapters and verses.

It was not until the time of the Masoretes that a
really
standard text was established. The Masoretes were biblical scholars who
lived
in the period between the 6th and 10th centuries
A.D.
the word Masorete means "one who hands down the tradition." These
scholars were not scientific critics of the text but men who sought to
preserve the best traditions regarding the reading of the text. There
were
several Masoretic schools, both in Palestine and Babylonia. The
Masoretes
sought to fix a standard, authoritative text on the basis of the MSS
available
to them, and to provide the text with the notations that would be of aid
in
its study. One of the most important of their activity was to provide
the text
with complete vowel points. They also provided it with elaborate symbols
to
aid in the correct reading of the text, partly the equivalent of modern
punctuation marks. They furnished in some cases indications of variant
readings in two families of MSS (the so called kethib-Qere).35

Under the sub heading 'Reconstructionof theOriginal Hebrew Text' the writer, J. Philip Hyatt, explains the
types
of corruption of the biblical text:

It should be obvious from this history of the text
that a
period of a thousand years or more elapsed between the completion of the
latest book of the OT and most of the MSS on which modern study is
based.
During this time the text was repeatedly copied and recopied by hand.
When one
thinks of the errors that may arise even with the use of modern
typewriters
and composing machines, it is not difficult to realize why errors arose
in
this repeated copying by hand. Errors could arise from failure to read a
text
properly, failure to hear correctly when manuscripts were written from
dictation, fatigue, failure to understand what one was writing, and even
sheer
carelessness. Sometimes material originally written in the margin was
incorporated in the text [stress
added].

It can be proved that errors have slipped into the
text by
comparison of parts of the Hebrew Bible
that give the same material in two places: for example, II
Samuel 22 and Psalm
18;
or Psalm 14 and Psalm
53;
or Isaiah 36 to 39 and
II
Kings 18:13 to 20:19.
More
extensive comparison may be made of the material in I-II Chronicles that
has
been adapted from I-II Samuel and I-II Kings. Small or large differences
suggest that one form or the other
[or none of them] may be original.

Errors also are obvious to the modern scholar in
passages
that do not make sense, even when read by one who has a thorough
knowledge of
Hebrew. The purpose of textual criticism, therefore, is to remove as
many
errors as possible from the present text and thereby to recover the
original
text.

A comparison of the available Hebrew MSS helps only a
little in recovery of the original text of the OT. Careful studies have
shown
that the Masoretic MSS that have come down to us contain few significant
variants. Those that occur are largely differences in orthography or
vocalization (and possibly dialects) and seldom give differences in
meaning.
The task of the OT textual critic is therefore different from that of
the NT
textual critic, who must rely largely upon careful comparison of early
Greek
MSS.

The complete Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea Scrolls
(known as IQIsa) is one of the earliest and best known pre-Masoretic
MSS.
While it very often agrees with the Masoretic text, it offers in a few
places
readings that appear to be superior to the readings of that text. For
example,
the Masoretic text of Isaiah 3:24 may
be translated as follows:

Instead of
sweet
spices there will be rottenness, And
instead of a girdle, a rope;
Instead of well-set hair, baldness,
And instead of a robe, a girdling of
sack-cloth;
Branding instead of beauty.

The last line of this verse presents two
difficulties: it
reverses the order of the words in the four preceding lines, and it
assumes a
meaning for the common Hebrew word ki, here translated
"branding,"
that it has nowhere else in the Bible. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah
contains an additional word to the last line,
which makes it possible to render it as follows:

For instead
of
beauty (there will be) shame.

In a few instances the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah
supports
the reading of the Septuagint or another ancient version. (Consult the
marginal notesto
Isaiah in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, where these
readings often are
cited.)36

The writer observes that the original text of the OT
was
altered in very ancient times, before the earliest known MSS and
versions

In a small number of cases the original text of the
OT was
altered in very ancient times, before the earliest known MSS and
versions, for
example, in II Samuel the word Baal (the name of a non-Hebrew
deity) in
personal names has been replaced by the word bosheth,
which means "shame." In Chronicles, however, the original forms have
been
retained. For example, the name of Saul's son is given as
ish-bosheth
in II Samuel 2:8, but as Esh Baal in I Chronicles 8:33. It is
certain
that his original name was not one that meant "man of shame," but rather
"man of Baal."37

The writer asserts that sometimes the textual critic
must
resort to emendation of the received Heb. text; but his purpose should be
to
recover the actual text rather than to improve what was written by the
ancient
author:

Recovery of the original text often requires more
than
comparison of ancient Hebrew MSS and comparison of parts of the OT. The
textual critic sometimes must resort to emendation of the received
Hebrew
text. The purpose of an emendation never should be to "improve" what was
written by an ancient author but simply to recover what he actually
wrote. OT
scholars in the latter part of the 19th century and the first
quarter of the 20th very often emended the Hebrew text and
frequently seemed to have little respect for the Masoretic text
[stress
added]. Scholars now have greater respect for that text and resort to
emendation only as a last resort. This heightened respect has come in
part
from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in part from increased
knowledge
of the history of the text and the recovery of the relatively early MSS,
and
in part from careful study of the Semitic languages that are cognate
with
Hebrew.

Thus the primary concern of the scholar should be to
understand and interpret the Masoretic text; if he cannot do that, he
may
resort to emendation.38

The writer has classified the task of emendation in the
following three categories:

Emendations of the Hebrew text may be classified as
follows:

Those that rest on the evidence of an ancient
version,
such as the Septuagint;

As regards the emendations based on the evidence of an
ancient version, such as the Septuagint, the writer writes:

Several of the ancient versions of the OT were
produced
before the time of the Masoretes. The most important are the Greek
Septuagint,
the Aramaic Targums, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Latin Vulgate of St.
Jerome.
These versions sometimes differ in detail from the Hebrew Bible. It is
possible, therefore, that in some instances they represent the
original text and the Masoretic text does not.

It is frequently very difficult to decide whether one
of
these versions or the Masoretic text represents the original reading. It
is
rash to assume that in every case of difference the Septuagint or
another
version is more original only because it is older than our Masoretic
MSS. The
scholar must very carefully consider every individual case of variation.
For
example, in comparing the Septuagint with the Hebrew text, the scholar
must
exercise great care. He must realize that the various translators of the
Septuagint differed in their competence and in care they took in their
work.
Sometimes they paraphrased rather than translated literally; sometimes
they
misunderstood a verse or passage. Corruptions have taken place in the
MSS of
the Septuagint itself, as in the Hebrew text. Nevertheless, even when
these
and other possibilities have been considered, the Septuagint and other
ancient
versions sometimes do give sound aid in restoring the original Hebrew.
The
following example will illustrate their use in textual emendation.

In I Samuel 14:41 a long clause obviously has dropped
out
of the Masoretic text but has been preserved in the Septuagint and the
Vulgate. In the following translation, the words in italics are omitted
in the
Hebrew:

And Saul
said to
the Lord, God of Israel, "Why
hast thou not answered thy servant today? If the guilt be in me or
Jonathan
my son, O Lord God of Israel, give Urim; but if the guilt be in thy
people
Israel give Thummim."
Jonathan and Saul were taken, and the people escaped.

It is clear that this longer form of the verse is
necessary to the sense, and it is easy to see why the Hebrew scribe made
the
omission. His eye skipped from the word "Israel" near the beginning of
the
verse to the same word near the end, and he unconsciously omitted all
the
intervening words. This type of error is known as homoioteleuton. The
same
error sometimes is made by typists today [stress added].

Another kind of error may be illustrated from Psalm
49:11.
The first half of the verse in Hebrew may be translated literally:
"Their
inwardness (qirbam) is their home for ever, their dwellingplaces
to all
generations." This is nonsense, which is not adequately relieved by the
King
James Version: "Their inward thought is, that their house
shall
continue for ever, and their dwellingplaces to all
generations,"
the words in italics not being in the Hebrew at allbut inserted in order
to
attempt to make sense of the verse. Yet, when one turns to the
Septuagint,
Peshitta, and Targum, one finds that the verse should be read: "their
graves
(qibram)" are their homes forever, their dwellingplaces to all
generations." The scribal error was simply that of transposing B and R,
so
that what was originally written as qibram eventually became
qirbam.

A few suggested emendations of the Masoretic text
have been
confirmed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah. For
example, the
Masoretic text of Isaiah 49:24, 25 reads as follows:

Can prey
be
seized from the mighty,
or the captives of a righteous man be
rescued?
For thus says the Lord"
Even the captive s of the mighty shall be seized,
and the prey of the tyrant be rescued;
For I will contend with those who contend with you,
and your children I will save.

In the second line the italicized term seems
strangely out
of place. It breeds the poetic parallelism, and one expects on the basis
of
the reading of the fifth line a word such as "tyrant." That is just the
word that is presupposed by the Septuagint, Peshitta, and the Vulgate,
and the
Hebrew word for "tyrant" occurs in the Dead Sea Scroll. The error
probably
arose from the fact that in the Hebrew square script the word
caris
("tyrant") and saddiq ("righteous man") are very similar in
appearance.40

As regards the emendations that are based wholly on
conjecture the writer of the article explains:

Emendations that are based wholly on conjecture must
be the
last resort of the textual critic, yet they are sometimes necessary and
sound.
They may be suggested out of a knowledge of the types of errors that
scribes
can make, the forms of the Hebrew letters, and common sense as to the
meaning
of a passage. One very simple emendation that has commended itself to
most
modern scholars may be found in Amos 6:12. The first half of the verse
reads
in Hebrew: "Do horses run on the rock? Does one plow with oxen?" the
first
rhetorical question implies the answer "no," but the second implies
"yes." One naturally expects in the light of the context that both
questions imply the same answer. The King James Version attempts to
resolve
difficulty by translating, "Will one plow there with oxen," but
"there" is not in the Hebrew. A simple solution gives a suitable
rendering. The Hebrew word babeqarim, "with oxen" can
be
divided into two Hebrew words, bebaqar yam, "with oxen
the
sea." We thus translate the emended text: "does one plow the sea with
oxen?" the difficulty arose from the fact that in ancient times
manuscripts
did not always separate words, or in some cases words were wrongly
separated.41

As regards the emendations that are exercised partly on
the
basis of ancient versions and partly by conjecture, the writer elucidates
as
follows:

Sometimes the text may be emended partly on the basis
of
ancient versions and partly by conjecture. A good example is Proverbs
25:27.
Translated literally, the Hebrew seems to say: "It is not good for one
to
eat much honey; and searching out their glory is glory." The meaning of
this
is far from apparent. One may attempt to restore the original text by
comparing the Septuagint and Targum and adopting their reading at the
end of
the verse, and then conjecturing that the first word (in Hebrew) of the
second
half of the verse is the same as the first word in the Proverbs 25:17.
One
then gets the proverbial saying: "It is not good for one to eat much
honey;
so be sparing of complimentary words."42

However, it is heartening to note that the learned
writer
has, ultimately, acknowledged the worth and credibility of the biblical
literature to some extent. He has observed:

Textual criticism has made great progress in the
attempt to
restore the original text of the OT. Much remains to be done, but on the
whole
the original text of the OT is as well known as that of any other book
that
has survived from antiquity and probably better known than most.43

The
Dummelow's Commentary asserts that the Mosaic authorship
regarding the
Pentateuch is not genuine:

The traditional view was that Moses was the author of
the five books which bear his name in our
Bibles; and until comparatively recent times this belief was accepted
without
question or inquiry regarding its grounds. A thorough study of these
books,
however, has led many to the conclusion that this view of their
authorship
does not fit in with the facts, and that another view is necessitated by
the
evidence which the books themselves present
[stress added].44

The Dummelow's Commentary expresses the view that
the
Pentateuch was anonymously written and it is not fair to ascribe it to him
in
its present form:

It must also be noted that as a whole the five books
are
anonymously written, and that there is no passage in the OT which claims
Moses
as their author. The 'Law of
Moses' indeed is frequently spoken of, and it is unquestionable that
Israelitish law did originate with him; but this expression is not
evidence
that Moses was the writer of the Pentateuch as we have it, or that the
laws
which it contains represent throughout his unmodified legislation.
(....).

On close examination, however, it must be admitted
that the
Pentateuch reveals many features inconsistent with the traditional view
that
in its present form it is the work of Moses. For instance it may be
safely granted that Moses did not write the account
of his own death in Dt 34. (...). In Gn 14:14 and Dt 34 mention is made
of
Dan; but the territory did not receive that name till it was conquered
by the
Danites, long after the death of Moses (Josh 19:47 Jg 18:29).
(....).

A careful examination has led many scholars to the
conviction that the writings of Mosesformed only the rough
material
or part of the material, and that in its present form it is not the work
of
one man, but a compilation made from previously existing documents[stress
added]. In this connexion it must be remembered that editing and
compiling is a recognised mode of authorship in OT history. Just as St.
Luke
tells us (Lk 1:1) that before our Four Gospels were written, there were
many
earlier accounts of our Lord's life already in existence, so the OT
writers
tell us of similar accounts already written of the facts which they
record.
And not only so, but they distinctly indicate that they used these
earlier
accounts in composing their own books. It is most interesting to find
embedded
in the existing books fragments of the old literature of ancient Israel,
as
geologists find the fragments of the lost animal life of early ages
embedded
in the rocks of to-day. See, for example, 'the book of the Wars of
Jehovah' (Nu 21:14), 'the book of Jesher' (2S 1:18) 'the
book of Gad
and Nathan' (1Ch 29:29), 'the book of Shemaiah and Iddo'
(2Ch 12:15).
Here we have evidence of the existence of sources of information to
which
editors and compilers of later days had access. We find also several
ancient
poems incorporated in the sacred text, eg. Gn 4:23f, Ex 15, 17:16, Nu
21:17,18,27f, Jg 5, etc., and it is probable there were other early
writings
available besides those which can now be traced. There is thus
nothing
strange in the suggestion that the books of the Pentateuch were based on
preexisting materials[stress
added].45

Hereunder the writer affords the main grounds of the
conviction that the Pentateuch is not the original work of one man, but a
compilation of the previously existing documents:

Composition.
The
following are the main grounds of the conviction that the Pentateuch is
not
the original work of one man, but a compilation of the previously
existing
documents.

(1) In the historical parts we find duplicate
accounts
of same event, which do not always agree in detail[stress
added]. Sometimes the two accounts are set down side by side;
sometimes
they are fused together more or less completely; but in many instances
no
attempt has been made either to remove or to reconcile their
differences. Thus
two distinct and independent accounts of the Creation are given, one in
Gn
1-2:4, the other in Gn
2:4-25.
Two accounts of the flood may be detected on a careful reading of Gn
6-9.
Again we find two sets of instructions for the observance of the
Passover in
Ex 12,
one in vv.
1-13, the other in
vv.
21-27.
We may also instance the contrasts between such passages as Gn
27:1-45
and 27:46-28:9,
where Rebekah is actuated by one motive in the former and by quite
another in
the latter; Gn 28:19
and 35:9-15,
where the name is given to Bethel in very different circumstances; Gn
35:10
and 32:28.
Compare also Ex 3:1-6:1
with 6:2-7:13,
where the latter sectiontakes
no account of the former, but begins the story of the mission to Pharaoh
anew,
as if 3:1-6:1
had never been written.

(2) Similarly in the legislative portions of these
books
we find apparent contradictions, and these not in minor or insignificant
details, but in fundamental enactments
[stress added]; and the only way in which we can solve the
problem thus
presented is by understanding that in these books (especially Exodus to
Deuteronomy) we have the records of laws laid down at various periods of
the
national history, and dealing with radically different conditions of
life. In
Ex 20-23, e.g., we have a set of laws which are evidently suited to the
circumstances of an agricultural and pastoral community scattered over a
considerable tract of country with their flocks and herds. This
legislation is
of a very simple and practical nature, based on the fundamental
principles of
truth and righteousness, and having reference to a primitive state of
society.
(....).

In the book of Deuteronomy we find a more advanced
type of
legislation, applying evidently to different circumstances. Many
injunctions,
indeed, are repeated, but many others are changed. The principles are
the same
as in the older legislation, but the rules are largely modified.
(....).

Again, in the book of Leviticus, with parts of Exodus
and
Numbers, we find another type of legislation, founded still on the same
Mosaic
principles, but more elaborate, more priestly, more rigid than that of
Ex
20-23 or that of Deuteronomy. (...).

(3)
Different
parts of the Pentateuch exhibit marked differences of vocabulary and
literary
style. Many of these differences, especially of vocabulary, can only be
appreciated by those acquainted with Hebrew; but any one can see that
the book
of Deuteronomy is written in a much more rhetorical style than, say, the
book
of Leviticus, and can appreciate its lofty and inspiring eloquence.
Again, in
one set of passages, of which Gn 1-2:4 is a type, the Almighty is called
God
(Hebrew Elohim), while in another set, of which Gn 2:4-26 is an
example, He is designated Lord (Hebrew Jehovah); and there are
many
other points of difference which are most satisfactorily explained by
the
theory that the writer of the Pentateuch, as we have it, made use of and
incorporated into his work documents originally separated.

Following up the clue given by these differences,
scholars
have endeavoured to disentangle the separate documents from which it is
suggested that the Pentateuch was compiled, and we shall now give a
brief
outline of the results of their investigations.46

The writer has also tried to trace the various sources
of the
material contained in the books of the Pentateuch:

Sources.

There is
first
what we may call the Primitive source (itself resting upon older
written
authorities), usually denoted by the symbol JE. (...). It begins at Gn
2:4,
and may be said to supply all the more detailed and picturesque
narratives
in Genesis, and Exodus, part of Numbers, and the first twelve chapters
of
Joshua. (...). It makes use of the term 'Jehovah' for God from
the very
outset of its narrative. Plausible attempts have been made to analyze
it
into two components, J and E; but for these reference must be made to
larger
works. (....).

It seems
probable
that the older written authorities underlying this Primitive or
Prophetic narrative were drawn up not later than 750 B.C., and perhaps
even a
century earlier; (...).

There is, secondly, the Priestly document (usually
designated P). This work so called because it regards the history of
Israel
from the Priestly point of view, (...).

This Priestly document avoids all anthropomorphic
representations of God, and in this respect is in striking contrast to
the
Primitive writing JE, which represents God as thinking and acting like a
man:
(...). A feature of its references to God is that it makes use of the
name
Elohim (God) for God almost exclusively (...). The writer of this
document
evidently belonged to the priestly class; his aim was entirely a
religious
one; (...). The Priestly thus exhibits signs of the discipline and
purification which the nation experienced in the exile and is
appropriately
dated at the close of that event.

The third document underlying the Pentateuch is the
book
of Deuteronomy, usually cited as D, and identified in its main parts
with
the Law-book discovered in the Temple by Hilkiah in thr eighteenth
year of
King Josiah, 621 B.C. (...).

It is supposed that these three documents―the
Primitive writing, the Priestly writing, and the the book of
Deuteronomy―were welded together somewhat in this way. The first
attempts to write a history of Israel probably originated in the schools
of
the prophets in the ninth century B.C.:
and in the Primitive writing JE we have the finished result. About the
same
time as JE was composed, the Second Legislation (D) was set down in
writing
and made public as recorded in 2K 22.
This was afterwards combined with the earlier writing, which gave it a
historical background. Then during, or immediately after the exile, the
ritual
law was drawn up in accordance with the priestly traditions, and given
an
appropriate setting in a historical framework, the result being the
Priestly
writing (P). Finally a later historian, taking these as his authorities,
wove
them together into a complete whole, connecting them by notes and
explanations, where these were necessary; not putting the history in his
own
words or presenting it from his own standpoint as a modern historian
would do,
but piecing together the sections of the sources which referred to the
same
events, and thus preserving not only the history, but the very words in
which
it had reached him, for all coming generations. In this writer's
work we
have the Pentateuch of the OT Scriptures.47

Geddes
MacGregor has
afforded, inter alia, another type of corruption in his esteemed book "The
Biblein
the Making". It would be pertinent to give an excerpt from it as
well:

(...). For all the care that scribes often devoted to
their
task, a great many errors inevitably crept in. Deviations occur even
among the
most reliable of the ancient Greek manuscripts.

Before the invention of printing, the difficulty of
reproducing the Bible
did not consist solely in the
labour of copying by hand. Parchment was scarce, so that contractions
were
very freely used. Sometimes a valuable manuscript, such as the Codex
Ephraemi,
a fifth-century Bible now in the Bibliotheqe Nationale, Paris, was
treated so
that, the writings have been erased by scraping and pumicing, the pages
might
be used over again for making another book. The lower writing was not
usually
quite obliterated, however, though it was extremely difficult to
decipher it
until chemical means were found to revive what had been rubbed out.
Such a
book, with one set of writing superimposed upon another, is called a
palimpsest [stress
added].
Again, MSS were often corrected by later copyist who scraped out with a
knife
what seemed to them incorrect, and modern scholars know that in many
cases it
was the corrector, not the MS, that was at fault. Sometimes a note would
be
made in the margin which a subsequent copyist would take to be part of
the
text. The hazards of inaccuracy in copying out the Bible by hand in the
circumstances that prevailed in those days were so great that it is
indeed
astonishing that a text has been preserved which, despite technical
problems
it presents to the learned, may be taken as generally not straying very
far
from the sense of the original.48

Point-wise recapitulation summaries have been afforded
for
some of the early parts of this article. They cover almost all of the
important
points. Thereafter, it was not deemed necessary. It was also not
considered
proper to quote more authorities. All the important themes have been
elucidated.
Moreover, almost all of the real and unbiased authorities unanimously
endorse
these themes. It can safely be concluded on the basis of the above
evidence that
the text of the OT of the Bible, verbatim et literatim, cannot be
taken as free from corruption and
alteration. However, the real message can be collected from it, using the
critical and analytical apparatus. It may be noted that these types of
corruption crept into the text of the Bible in spite of all the humanly
possible
care that had been sincerely afforded by the early scholars of the Bible.
Geddes
MacGregor has noted some measures taken towards the faultless transmission
of
the Bible texts. He notes:

(...). With the fall of the Temple at Jerusalem in
that
year [A.D. 70], the
ritual
worship with its animal sacrifices was at end, and the dispersed Jews
had
nothing to take with them on their wanderings but their Bibles. To the
copying
out of these they devoted immense care. The regulations for making a
copy of
the Scriptures are set forth in the Talmud (the great post-Biblical
collection
of Jewish law and legend) and show how scrupulously careful the scribes
had to
be. The scroll of the Law for use in a synagogue had to be fastened, for
instance, with strings made from the skin of 'clean' animals.
The length
of each column was prescribed: not more than sixty nor fewer than
forty-eight
lines were permitted. Lines had to be drawn before the writing was done,
and
if a scribe inadvertently wrote more than three words without first
lining his
copy, the whole thing was rendered worthless. He had to see that the
space of
a thread lay between each two consecutive letters that he wrote, and he
was
not allowed to write even a single letter from memory, without first
looking
at the approved text from which he was making the copy. He had to see
that he
never began the sacred name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, lest
he
spatter this. The ink had to be black, made exactly according to a
carefully
delineated prescription. Throughout the whole of his work, the scribe
was
required to sit in full Jewish dress, and he was forbidden to speak to
anyone,
even a king. Any copies that did not entirely conform to the exacting
standard
had to be destroyed. What chiefly accounts for the absence of early
Hebrew
MSS, however, is the fact that as soon as any scroll became worn out it
had to
be put in a special room called Geniza, adjoining the synagogue, the
contents
of which room were periodically cleared out and destroyed. The Jews had
no
interest in preserving tattered old copies of the Scriptures for the
sake of
their antiquity: what they wanted were accurate copies, and so long as
accuracy of current copies was ensured by the rigid regulations, old
ones
could be discarded.49

It can thus be
safely concluded that the text of the OT had to suffer many a type of
setback
due to a number of reasons as detailed above. As such all possible
analytical
and critical measures should be adopted to ascertain the validity and
intent of
its text. But, at the same time, withal its shortcomings, it has preserved
a lot
of theological, historical, and prophetic substance in it and is not to be
discarded outright.

Some
Types of CorruptionIn
the Text of the NT

Like the OT text there is a variety of corruption in
the NT
text as well. The scholarly book named 'The Text of the NT, its
Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration'50
deals exclusively with this theme. The heading of Chapter VII of the book
is
"The Causes of Error in the Transmission of the Text of the NT". It would
be
very pertinent to undertake a study of its themes. The learned writer has
divided it in two sub-headings: (I) Unintentional
Changes; and (II)Intentional
Changes.

Dealing with theUnintentional
Changes, the
writer has
taken up thesubject under
following sections:

Unintentional
Changes:

Errors Arising from
Faulty
Eyesight:

The scribe who was afflicted with astigmatism51
found it difficult to distinguish between Greek letters which
resemble
one another, particularly when previous copyist had not written
with
care. Thus in uncial52
script the sigma, the epsilon, the theta, and the omicron were
sometimes
confused, etc.53

When two lines in the exemplar from which the
ascribe
was making a copy happened to end with the same word or words, or
even
sometimes with the same syllable, his eye might wander from the
first to
the second, accidentally omitting the whole passage lying between
them.
Thus is to be explained the curious reading at John xvii, 15 in
Codex
Vaticanus, which lacks the words which are enclosed in square
brackets:
'I do not pray that thou shouldst take them from the [world
but that
thou shouldst keep them from the] evil one.'(...).Many other examples of omission, called haplography54,
occur in a wide variety of MSS. (...). Sometimes the eye of the
scribe
picked up the same word or group of words a second time and as a
result
copied twice what should have appeared only once (this kind of
error is
called dittography).55

Errors
Arising from Faulty Hearing :

When scribes made copies from dictation, or even
when a
solitary scribe in his own cell pronounced to himself the words which
he was
transcribing, confusion would sometimes arise over words having the
same
pronunciation as others, but differing in spelling (as the English
words 'there'
and 'their'
or
'grate' and
'great').56

Errors of the Mind:

The category of errors of the mind includes those
variations which seem to have arisen while the copyist was holding a
clause
or sequence of letters in his (somewhat treacherous) memory between
the
glance at the MS to be copied and the writing down of what he saw
there. In
this way one must account for the origin of a multitude of changes
involving
the substitution of synonyms, variation in the order of words, and the
transposition of letters. (....).57

Errors of Judgement:

Words and notes standing in the margin of the older
copy
were occasionally incorporated into the text of the new MS. since the
margin
was used for glosses (that is, synonyms of hard words in the text) as
well
as corrections, it must have often been most perplexing to a scribe to
decide what to do with a marginal note. It was easiest to solve his
doubt by
putting the note into the text which he was copying. Thus it is
probable
that what was originally a marginal comment explaining the moving of
the
water in the pool at Bethesda (John v.7) was incorporated into the
text of
John v. 3b-4 (see the KJV for the addition). Again, it is altogether
likely
that the clause in later MSS at Rom. Viii. 1, 'who walk not
according to
the flesh but according to the spirit', was originally an
explanatory note
(perhaps derived from vs. 4) defining 'those who are in Christ
Jesus'.
(...). Other errors originated, not because of the exercise of faulty
judgement, but from the lack of judgement altogether. 58

INTENTIONAL
CHANGES:

Odd though it may seem, scribes who thought were
more
dangerous than those who wished merely to be faithful in copying what
lay
before them. Many of the alterations which may be classified as
intentional
were no doubt introduced in good faith by copyists who believed that
they
were correcting an error or infelicity of language which had
previously
crept into the sacred text and needed to be rectified. A later scribe
might
even re-introduce an erroneous reading that had been previously
corrected.59

Changes Involving
Spelling and
Grammar:

The Book of Revelation, with its frequent
Semitisms and
solecism, afforded many temptations to style-conscious scribes.
[The writer has given here some concrete examples of the Greek
language to
elaborate the theme].60 &n
bsp;

Harmonistic
Corrections:

Some harmonistic alterations originated
unintentionally; others were made quite deliberately. Since monks
usually
knew by heart extensive portions of the Scriptures, the temptation
to
harmonize discordant parallels or quotations would be strong in
proportion
to the degree of the copyist's familiarity with other parts of
the Bible. The words which belong in John xix. 20, 'It was written in
Hebrew, in
Latin, and in Greek', have been introduced into the text of many
MSS at
Luke xxiii. 38. (...). Frequently OT quotations are enlarged from
the OT
context, or are made to conform more closely to the Septuagint
wording.
For example, the clause in the King James version at Matt. Xv. 8,
'[this
people] draweth nigh unto me with their mouth'―a
clause which is not found in the earlier MSS of Matthew―was
introduced into later MSS by conscientious scribes who compared the
quotation with the fuller form in the Septuagint of Isa. xxix.
13.[There are other
examples in it as well to elaborate the point].61

Addition of Natural
Complements
and Similar Adjuncts:

The work of copyist in the amplifying and
rounding off
of phrases is apparent in many passages. Not a few scribes supposed
that
something is lacking in the statement in Matt. ix. 13, 'For I
came not
to call the righteous, but sinners', and added the words
'unto
repentance' (from Luke v. 32). So, too, many a copyist found it
hard to
let 'the chief priests' pass without adding 'the
scribes' (e.g.
Matt. xxvi. 3), or 'scribes' without 'Pharisees'
(e.g. Matt. xxvii.
41); or to copy out the phrase, 'your Father who sees you in
secret will
reward you' (Matt. vi. 4, 6), without adding the word
'openly'.
(...). A good example of a growing text is found in Gal. vi. 17,
where the
earliest form of the text is that preserved in
[the writer has given here some reference] 'I bear on my
body the
marks of Jesus'. Pious scribes could not resist the temptation
to
embroider the simple and unadorned
[the writer has given here the actual Greek word] with
various
additions.62

Clearing up Historical
and
Geographical Difficulties:

in earlier MSS of Mark i.2 the composite
quotation from
Malachi (iii.1) and from Isaiah (xl. 3) is introduced by the
formula,
'As it is written in Isaiah the prophet'. Later scribes
sensing that
this involves a difficulty, replaced
[the writer has given here the Greek words] with the general
statement [the writer has
given
here the actual Greek words]. Since the quotation which
Matthew
(xxvii.9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from
Zechariah
(xi. 12f.), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend
the
error, either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the
name
altogether. A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine
account of
the chronology of passion with that in Mark by changing 'sixth
hour'
of John xix. 14 to 'third hour' (which appears in Mark xv.
25). At
John i. 28 Origen altered ...to ... in order to remove what he
regarded a
geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS.
[?] and
many others, including those which lie behind the KJV. The statement
in
Mark viii. 31, that 'the Son of man must suffer many things ...
and be
killed and after three days (?) rise again', seems to involve a
chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase to
the more
familiar expression, 'on the third day' (?).

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places
the
golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. ix. 4), which is
contrary to the OT description of the Tabernacle (Exod. xxx. 1-6).
The
scribe of codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version
correct the account by transferring the words to ix. 2, where the
furniture of the Holy Place is itemized.63

Conflation of
Reading:

What would a conscientious scribe do when he found
that
the same passage was given differently in two or more MSS which he had
before him? Rather that make a choice between them and copy only one
of the
two variant readings (with the attendant possibility of omitting the
genuine
reading), most scribes incorporated both readings in the new copy
which they
were transcribing. This produced what is called a conflation64
of readings, and is characteristic of the later, Byzantine type of
text. For
example, in some early MSS the Gospel according to Luke closes with
the
statement that the disciples 'were continually in the temple
blessing
God', while others read 'were continually in the temple
praising God'.
Rather than discriminate between the two, later scribes decided that
it was
safest to put the two together, and so they invented the reading
'were
continually in the temple praising and blessing God'.

In the early MSS at Markxiii. 11 Jesus counsels his followers not to be 'anxious
beforehand' (...).
Other
MSS of Mark read 'do
not practice beforehand'
(...), which is the expression used also in the Lucan
parallel
(xxi. 14).
Rather
than choose between these two verbs, a good many copyists of Mark gave
their
readers the benefit of both. In Actsxx.
28 the two earlier readings, 'church of God' and 'church
of the
Lord', are conflated in later MSS, producing 'the church of
the Lord and
God'. 65

Alterations Made because of
Doctrinal Considerations:

The number of deliberate alterations made in the
interest
of doctrine is difficult to assess. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian, Eusebius, and many other Church Fathers accused the
heretics of
corrupting the Scriptures in order to have support for their special
views.
In the mid-second century Marcion expunged his copies of the Gospel
according to luke of all references to the Jewish background of Jesus.
Tatian's Harmony of the Gospels contains several textual
alterations which
lent support to ascetic or encratite views.

Even within the pale of the Church one party often
accused another of altering the text of the Scriptures. Ambrosiaster,
the
fourth-century Roman commentator on the Pauline Epistles, believed
that
where the Greek MSS differed on any important point from the Latin MSS
which
he was accustomed to use, the Greeks 'with their presumptuous
frivolity'
had smuggled in the corrupt reading. In revising the Old Latin text of
the
Gospels, St. Jerome was apprehensive lest he be censured for making
even
slight alterations in the interest of accuracy―a
fear that events proved to be well founded!

The MSS of the NT preserve traces of two kinds of
dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or
alteration of
what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient, and
those
which introduce into the Scriptures 'proof' for a favourite
theological
tenet or practice.

In transcribing the prologue to the Third Gospel,
the
scribes of several Old Latin MSS as well as the Gothic version
obviously
thought that the Evangelist should have referred to divine approval of
his
decision to compose a Gospel, and so to Luke's statements (i.3),
'It
seemed good to me . . . to write an orderly account . . .', they
added
after 'me' the words 'and to the Holy Spirit'. The
addition imitates
the text of Acts xv. 28, which reads, 'For it has seemed good to
the Holy
Spirit and to us . . .'.

The inconsistency between Jesus' declaration in
John
vii. 8, 'I am not going up to the feast, for my time has not yet
fully
come', and the statement two verses later, 'But after his
brothers had
gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in
private'
(a discrepancy which Porphyry seized upon to accuse Jesus of
'inconstantia
ac mutatio'), led some scribes to change ... ('I am not
yet going
up ...'). Jesus' statement, 'But of that day and hour no
one knows,
not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only'
(Matt.
xxiv. 36 and Mark xiii. 32), was unacceptable to scribes who could not
reconcile Jesus' ignorance with his divinity, and who saved the
situation
by simply omitting the phrase (....).

In Luke ii there are several references to Joseph
and
Mary which, in the ordinary text, doubtless appeared to some persons
in the
early Church to require rephrasing in order to safeguard the virgin
birth of
Jesus. In ii. 41 and 43 instead of the words 'his parents'
some MSS read
'Joseph and Mary'. In ii. 33 and 48 certain witnesses alter
the
reference to Jesus' father either by substituting the name Joseph
(as in
vs. 33) or by omitting it altogether (as in vs. 48). 66

The section
of the OT was concluded with the following passage, which is
equally true in respect of the NT with some modifications
that have been duly incorporated in it:

It can thus be safely concluded that the text of the
NT had
to suffer many types of setbacks due to a number of reasons as detailed
above.
As such all possible analytical and critical measures should be adopted
to
ascertain the validity and intent of its text. But, at the same time,
withal
its shortcomings, it has preserved a lot of theological, historical, and
prophetic substance in it and is not to be discarded outright.

11'The Old Testament Text',
written by Shemaryahu Talmon, Professor of Bible, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, in The
Cambridge History of the Bible, Cambridge, at the University Press,
1970, p.
159f.

49 &nbs
p;
Prof. Dr. Geddes MacGregor, Dean of the Graduate School of Religion
and
Professor of Philosophical Theology in the University of Southern
California, John Murray, Albemarle Street London, 1961, pp. 8f.

50 &nbs
p;
Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford at the
Clarendon Press,
1964.

51 &nbs
p;
A defect in an eye, lens or mirror by which rays from a single
point
are not focused at a single point.

52 &nbs
p;
Uncial, i.e. written in majuscule (large letters) writing with
rounded unjoined letters found in manuscripts of the
4th-8th
century, from which modern capitals are derived.

Islamic tradition relates that the Ka'bah was built
by the Prophet Abraham and his son Ismai'l.Â
The stone structure, cubed in design, was built for the purpose of
worshipping and maintaining a relationship with God.Â The rites performed by the two Prophets, thousands of years
ago, are to this day performed by pilgrims the world over.Â It is the center, on earth, where hundreds of millions of
people face every day in transcendental unity and harmonious prostration for the
purpose of reverence of the One God.Â It
symbolically represents the universality and unity of conviction and purpose of
those whom worship the Almighty.Â

The Ka'bah is a spiritual meeting place for the
souls of the Believers to join and reach their destination of communion with one
another and their Creator.Â It is
merely a marker that points to the direction of God's House for those who wish
to offer up their prayers.Â There is
nothing inside the Ka'bah and its physical construction is of no
significance.Â The worshippers go
around the Ka'bah, counterclockwise, symbolizing walking the righteous
path towards God.Â Full circle is
marked by the Black Stone.Â The
worshippers walk by and touch or raise their hands towards it symbolizing the
renewal of their pledge of allegiance with the Lord of the Ka'bah.Â
They physically reach out to God and God in return spiritually reaches
out to them.Â Here, in the house of
God, mankind finds tranquility and a Welcoming, Loving and Compassionate
Landlord.Â The Ka'bah is a
sanctuary for the souls of mankind to express their devotion and seek harmony
with God and His way.

A person whose heart opens up to the ideals and teachings of
Islam and whose spirit is filled with the faith in the One God may become a
Muslim. Accepting the teachings of
Islam, as was taught by the Prophet Muhammad, places a person amongst those who
call themselves Muslim. Thus, the
essence of Islam is based on two factors:Â First, belief that there is only
one God; and second, accepting Muhammad as a true Prophet and Messenger of God,
which means that the person accepts and submits to all of Muhammad's religious
teachings as God's true guidance to humanity. By accepting and submitting to
these two points, a person becomes a Muslim.

Having become a Muslim - by sincerely accepting the two
stated points - a person should, preferably, declare his conversion in his
social circle and to any state department, if required by law. The words that
the Prophet Muhammad, generally, recommended for this declaration are:

"I bear witness there is no deity except the (One) God
and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God."

This declaration of faith (called Shahadah in Arabic)
can be spoken in any language unless the person chooses to say them in the
original Arabic.Â

Finally, it is desirable that the person should take a bath
to complete this process of cleansing. The bath is a symbolic representation of
washing one's self of all the sins committed as well as any incorrect beliefs
held in the past.Â

From the day of one's conversion, the person becomes the
brother or sister to every person who identifies himself or herself as Muslim.

At the moment of conversion to Islam the person is cleansed
of all the sins that he or she may have committed in the past, before becoming a
Muslim. In fact one starts with a
fresh slate and becomes as pure as a newborn child, without sin.

Question: It seems that Qur'an is requiring Muslims not to make Jews and Christians friends (auliya)
(5:51), but it is also requiring them to show good attitude (birr) towards them
in another passage (60:8). What is your view on this matter?

Answer: I will let you know about the more popular traditional view on the subject first, and then
mention why that view is not acceptable to me. Finally you will get my
understanding on the subject.

A) The Popular View
Verse 5:51 of Qur'an has been translated thus: "O believers! Take neither Jews nor
Christians as your protecting friends (auliya): they are only protecting friends
of one another. Whoever of you disobeys this commandment will be counted as one
of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoers."

"Aulia is the plural of wali. Wali means a friend, some one close, as well as a helper. What
it means is that Muslims are expected not to make Jews, Christians, and all
other disbelievers (kuffar) their protecting friends, as has been clarified in
surah Nisaa. However, to deal with them with justice, politeness, generosity,
and decency is quite another matter. If believers feel it to be necessary, they
can have agreements of peace with all disbelievers, as has been mentioned in
verse 8: 61. Justice is meant to be done in case of all humans, whether Muslim
or non-Muslim. The attitude of politeness and decency can be demonstrated for
those non-Muslims who are not antagonistic towards Muslims. However, as far as
Muwalaat (i.e. confidence of friendship and brotherly help and support) is
concerned, no Muslim has a right to establish it with any non-Muslim."

B) My Reservations
I have quite a few problems when I try to rationally understand this point of view in the light of
Qur'anic teachings. I will just mention a few of them here:

Qur'an allows Muslim men to marry Jew and Christian ladies: "Likewise, marriage with
chaste free believing women and also chaste women among the People who were
given the Book before you is made lawful for you." (5:5) It also tells
believing men to be good to their wives : "Treat them with kindness even if
you dislike them; it is quite possible that you dislike something in which Allah
has placed much good." (4:19) It also tells us that good wives are the ones
that have the following attributes: "Honorable women are, therefore,
devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah requires them to
guard (their husband's property and their own honor)." (4:34) The Almighty
mentions the closeness of the husband-wife relationship in many different ways.
For instance, Qur'an says: "And of His signs, another one is that He
created for you mates from among yourselves that you may find comfort with
them" (30: 21) He also says "They (your wives) are an apparel for you
and you for them. " (2:187)

I can't understand how a good Muslim would be able to have very close relations with his non-Muslim
wife on the one hand and yet be able to maintain the caution that the
conventional point of view would like Muslims to have with non-Muslims. A lady
is either your wife or she is not. And what about one's attitude towards the
in-law relatives? Are all of them to be treated with the same mysteriously
unclear attitude, which is neither friendly nor frank?

Consider the following Qur'anic passage:

" Allah does not forbid you to be kind ( tabarru, birr) and equitable (tuqsitu, qist) to
those who had neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your
homes. In fact Allah loves the equitable. (60:8)Allah only forbids you to make friends (wali) those who
fought you on account of your faith and drove you out of your homes and backed
up others in your expulsion. Those who will take them for friends are indeed the
wrongdoers." (60: 9)

In the verse 60:9, Qur'an is requiring believers not to make friends those non-Muslims "who
fought you on account of your faith and drove you out of your homes and backed
up others in your expulsion." In the previous verse, Qur'an allows Muslims
to be kind and equitable to those "who had neither fought against your
faith nor driven you out of your homes." My question is this: Where is
Qur'an requiring Muslims not to make friends of those non-Muslims who "had
neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your homes?" Where
is it said in this passage? When the categorical statement made is that only
those "who fought you on account of your faith and drove you out of your
homes and backed up others in your expulsion" can't be made your friends,
how can we add anything else into this category, especially when that category
has been clearly defined as a distinct one of those people who can't be made
friends? If the answer to it is that it has been mentioned elsewhere in Qur'an,
I would say that quite apart from the fact that the passages of Qur'an that have
been alleged to be making such statements have been improperly understood, why
has that not been mentioned in this passage, which was the most appropriate
occasion for the purpose of clarifying the matter? If the claim that Muslims
can't make even good non-Muslims their friends, Qur'an should have said
something to this effect:

"Allah forbids you to make non-Muslims your friends. However, he does not forbid you to be kind
( tabarru, birr) and equitable (tuqsitu, qist) to those who had neither fought
against your faith nor driven you out of your homes. In fact Allah loves the
equitable." Had that been the statement in the verse, the following verse
wouldn't have been consistent with the rest of the passage: "Allah only
forbids you to make friends (wali) those who fought you on account of your faith
and drove you out of your homes and backed up others in your expulsion. Those
who will take them for friends are indeed the wrongdoers." (60: 9)

Imagine you are telling someone "you can't make thieves friends; as for honest people, you
can be good to them." How on earth can you claim that this statement is
requiring that honest people too can't be made friends? If there was another
category of people who were required not to be made friends, that category
should have been mentioned along with thieves.

On the basis of this understanding I strongly believe that the claim that Muslims are urged not
to make Jew and Christian friends irrespective of their attitude towards Islam
and Muslims is incorrect.

Yet another problem I have with this understanding is that if you go by what this
understanding says, Islam seems to be a religion that is promoting tension and
hatred amongst humans. On the other hand, when you read Qur'an you find that the
Almighty wants humans to come close to one another as a family. If there is any
differentiation required to be maintained that has to be on the basis of piety.
Qur'an says: "O mankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a
female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might get to know one
another. Surely the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most
righteous. Allah is All-Knowledgeable, All-Aware." (49:13)

It is on the basis of the high status Islam attaches to piety and God-consciousness that Qur'an
praises non-Muslims in several verses. For instance, Qur'an says:

Qur'an says

"Among the people of the Book there are those who if you trust them with a treasure, will return
it to you; and among them there are those who, if you trust them with a dinar,
will not return it to you, unless you keep standing over them." (3:75)

"They are not all alike. Among the people of the Book there is a party who stand by their
covenant; they recite the Word of God in the hours of night and prostrate
themselves before Him. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin good and
forbid evil, and hasten to vie with one another in good works. And these are
among the righteous." (3:113)

"And surely among the People of the Book there are some who believe in God and in what has been
sent down to you and in what was sent down to them, humbling themselves before
Allah. They trade not the signs of God for a paltry price. It is these who shall
have their reward with their Lord. Surely God is swift in settling account."
(3:199)

Another problem with this view that considers all Jews and Christians as Kuffar (those who
deliberately reject faith) is that if you accept this view then you have to
accept that they are all the worst of all creatures according to Qur'an. The
Book of Allah says: "Surely those who disbelieve from among the people of
the Book and the Mushrikin (the polytheists) shall be in fire of hell, to dwell
therein forever. They are the worst of all creatures." (98:6) Why, if the
other view is correct, is Qur'an requiring Muslims to "be kind and
equitable to those (non-believers) who had neither fought against your faith nor
driven you out of your homes", when they are worst of creatures? Why have
some of them been praised so lavishly in the verses mentioned in point three
above?

C) The Correct View
I believe that the correct view in this regard is that Muslims are required to maintain cordial and
friendly relations with all good people, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, on the
basis of their behaviour towards Islam and towards Muslims. If there are
so-called Muslims around, who are making fun of Islam, Muslims are expected not
to be friendly with them too. On the other hand, if there are some good
non-Muslims who are respectful to Islam, there is no harm in making them
friends. In fact, Muslims should be friendly with them also with the purpose of
bringing them closer to Islam.

Qur'an has clarified the reason why some Jews and Christians can't be made friends in the
following passage:

"O believers! Do not make your protecting friends those, from among the people who were given
the Book before you and the unbelievers, who have made your religion a mockery
or pastime, fear Allah if you are true believers. When you call for Salah
(prayers) they make it as an object of mockery and pastime; this is because they
are a people devoid of understanding." (5:57-58)

It is the same instruction the Almighty has given to Muslims regarding the hypocrite
fellow-Muslims as well. Qur'an says "He has already revealed for you in the
Book that when you hear Allah's revelations being denied or ridiculed by people,
you must not sit with them unless they change the topic of their talk, otherwise
you shall be considered guilty like them. Rest assured that Allah is going to
gather the hypocrites and the unbelievers all together in hell." (4:140)
"What is the matter with you, why are you divided into two groups
concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has cast them off on account of their
misdeeds? Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has confounded? Whomever Allah
has confounded you cannot find a way for them to be guided." (4:88)

I therefore strongly believe that Qur'an has mentioned the question of friendship to be
decided only on the basis of the merit of an individual's conduct and character
rather than on a person's apparent religious attachment. If a believer's faith
is in jeopardy while in the company of a bad Muslim, he should avoid that
company, while if a believer's character and faith are safe and secure in a
non-Muslim's friendship which can moreover result in that non-Muslim's
conversion to Islam, that Muslim would do well to continue to make him his
friend. The Almighty wants us to avoid the company of only such people whose
"... real wish is to see that you become a disbeliever, as they have
disbelieved, so that you may become exactly like them. So you should not take
friends from their ranks unless they immigrate in the way of Allah ..."
(4:89) The Qur'an clarifies in another passage that such devious people are
only a few and not all the people of the Book. The Qur'an says: "O
believers! If you were to obey a group of those who were given the Book,
they will turn you back from belief to unbelief." (3:100)

I could not complete my article "Barnabas,
His Gospel and Its Credibility"[1],
due to some other assignments. Although the article is incomplete, it would be
advisable if you manage to go through both of its installments once again. You
wrote about the 'Epistle to Hebrews'. According to modern research
it was not written by Barnabas. Of course Barnabas was a scholarly person and he
composed a "Gospel", but the attribution of the 'Epistle to Hebrews'
to him is not credible. Actually there exists another 'Epistle of Barnabas'.
It has been included in "The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Translations OfThe Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325", Ed.
The Rev. Alexander Roberts & James
Donaldson, WM. B. Eerdmans Pblg. Co., Grand Rapids,
Michigan, Vol. I, pp.133-149. Initially there is a three page
'Introductory Note' to it. Necessary footnotes have also been afforded to it.
Its attribution to Barnabas is also doubtful. However, it is a worth-reading
treatise. As regards his Gospel, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
asserts:

Gospel of Barnabas was declared a
rejected book in the Decretum Gelasianum by Pope Gelasius [Pope of Rome
492-96]. According to E. Von Dobschutz, it is a private compilation which was
composed in Italy (but not at Rome) in the early sixth century.[2]

It is strange that a book which is claimed to be 'composed
in Italy in the early sixth century' had been declared a 'rejected book'
in the fifth century. So the observation of E. Von Dobschutz, if it has been
truly attributed to him, is absurd and baseless and may be rejected outright. It
is thus clear that "the Gospel of Barnabas" had already been
existing when Pope Gelasius declared it 'a rejected book' in fifth century more
than a hundred years earlier than the advent of Islam. As to its date of actually being written, there are reasons
to believe that it had been written even before the 'Gospel According To
Matthew' was written. I shall try to elaborate it just a few lines later.

As to the Gospel According to Matthew's date of
being written, the research of the "New Testament Introduction" claims it to be
ca. A.D. 85-90. It asserts:

(1) Matthew (ca. A.D. 85-90). This gospel
makes use of Mk as well as other traditions about Jesus and collections of
Jesus' sayings. It was composed in Greek as the reference to Daniel as "the
prophet" in 24:15 implies. (...). Many scholars think that the community that
formed the basis of the Matthean church had come from Palestine and settled in
Syria. Mt 4:24 has the only reference in the gospels of Jesus' fame spreading
"throughout all Syria." The community may have been predominantly Christians
of Jewish background, since non-Jews (Gentiles) are referred to as outsiders
(5:47; 6:7,32; 10:5-6, 17-18; 18:17).[3]

The results of the research of the "Oxford
Companion to the Bible" are also of similar nature. It has afforded the
rationale of its conclusion as well. It observes:

It is commonly held that Matthew was written
about 85 or 90 CE by an unknown Christian who was at home in a church located
in Antioch of Syria. A date toward the end of the first century seems probable
because the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 CE, appears to be
an event that was rapidly receding into the past (22.7). Although the apostle
Matthew may have been active in founding the church in which the gospel story
attributed to him arose (9.9; 10.3), it is unlikely that he was the story's
author. On the contrary, the author exhibits a theological outlook, command of
Greek, and rabbinic training that suggest he was a Jewish Christian of the
second rather than the first generation (cf. 13.52). Also, Antioch of Syria
commends itself as the place where he may have been at home. Because the
social conditions reflected in his story correspond with those that seem to
have prevailed there: the city was Greek-speaking, urban, and prosperous, and
it had a large population of both Jews and Gentiles.[4]

The Cambridge Companion to the Bible writes:

In the late
first century, after the destruction of the temple, Matthew, Luke-Acts, and
John were written. The mother church of Christianity, the Jerusalem community,
was destroyed in the sack of Jerusalem, so power shifted definitively to the
Gentile communities around the Mediterranean. Followers of Jesus continued to
interpret the Bible to match their evolving understanding of Jesus and new
communal circumstances.[5]

Even the identity of the author of the Gospel of
Matthew is unknown and it is anonymous like the other gospels. The Cambridge
Companion to the Bible notes:

This Gospel is anonymous, like the others.
When the church in the second century sought to lend authority to its Gospels,
it assigned each of them to an apostle or an associate of an apostle. About
130, Papias attributed this Gospel to Matthew [stress added] (who seems
also to have been known as Levi; cf. Matt. 9:9 and Mark 2:13) and claimed that
he wrote it in Hebrew. But its author used the Greek Gospel of Mark as a
source [stress added. It means that the 'Matthew' was written after
'Mark'.], and the many scriptural quotations are from Greek translation rather
than directly from the Hebrew Bible. Although we cannot determine who the
author was, careful analysis shows us what his concerns were and on what basis
he modified and expanded the Gospel tradition. The issues that are central for
him reflect the developments described above that were taking place in Judaism
around the years 95-100.[6]

The Cambridge Companion to the Bible also notes at
another place:

The most plausible explanation for the
relationship among the synoptic gospels is that Mark is the original, with
Matthew and Luke drawing on Mark and a second common source (Q) but developing
the details of structure and content independently.[7]

As to the date of the gospel of Mark, the same
authority observes:

(...), and the oldest of the gospels, Mark, dates
from no earlier than the late sixties and was written probably about the time
of the Jewish revolt of 66-70.[8]

The time when the Gospel of Mark was written is
also uncertain. Its concern with the threatened coming of armies to seize
Jerusalem and destroy its temple suggests that it dates from the years after
the Jewish nationalists began their revolt against the Romans but before the
temple was destroyed: that is, between 66 and 70 CE.[9]

The 'New Testament Introduction' places it between
AD 68 and 70:

Mark (ca. A.D. 68-70). Our earliest gospel, Mk
has been used by both Mt and Lk. Mk emphasizes the need for Christians to
expect sufferings.[10]

Although some of the scholars purposefully claim
that the Gospel according to Matthew had been written earlier, but it is by no
means safe to assign it a date prior to A.D. 70, as can easily be appreciated
from the evidence recorded above, which assigns it some date around AD 85-90.

Barnabas had died in A.D. 61. He had separated from
Paul in A.D. 49 after a 'sharp contention' with him on the question of the
inclusion of his cousin, John Mark, in the Second Missionary Journey (AD 49-52)[11].
He left for Cyprus for good. He might have immediately started composing his
gospel and would have completed it within a year or two, i.e. AD 50 or 51 after
which he started preaching it.

We see, when I Corinthians was written in c. AD 55[12]
or AD 56[13],
Barnabas was still alive, as stated in the New BD:

When I Corinthians was written Barnabas was still
alive, and, like Paul and unlike most of their colleagues, supporting himself
without drawing on the churches (I Cor 9:6 [which reads: 'Or is it only I
and Barnabas who must work for a living.']).[14]

As regards his year of death, it is most probably
AD 61. G. Milligan has concluded in his article 'Barnabas' in Hastings DB:

(...), while Col 4.10 has been taken as proving
that by this time (about A.D. 63) Barnabas must have been dead, else Mark
would not have rejoined Paul (cf. 2 Ti: 4.!!, 1P:5.13).[15]

It means that Barnabas must have died shortly
before the Epistle to Colossians was written. So Barnabas' year of
death can easily be ascertained, if the date of writing of this Epistle is
confirmed. Here are some references to establish the date of this Epistle:

McKenzie's DB suggests AD 61-63 to be the date of
writing of this 'Epistle to Colossians'.[16]
William Smith's DB asserts under the heading of 'First imprisonment of
St. Paul at Rome. A.D. 61-63':

To that imprisonment (...) belongs the noble group
of letters to Philemon, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians and to the
Philippians.[17]

The New Bible Dictionary has also assigned the same
date to this 'Epistle to Colossians', as can be concluded from the following:

Paul had a stormy sea-voyage and, after being
wrecked, spent the winter on Malta (c. AD 61). He reached Rome in the spring
and spent the next 2 years under house-arrest (...). Most probably Paul was
released in AD 63 (...).[18]

The Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia reports:

Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, written during
Paul's imprisonment in Rome (ca. 60-64 CE, though scholars are divided as to
the exact dates).[19]

The above evidence makes it clear that 'Epistle to
Colossians' was written during the 'First imprisonment of St. Paul at Rome:
A.D. 61-63'. Thus we can almost exactly ascertain his year of death. It can be
located somewhere between AD 55 and 63. Most probably Barnabas might have died
in AD 61.[20]
The New Age Encyclopaedia reports:

Barnabas is supposed to have been martyred at
Salamis in Cyprus in 61 AD,[21]

Merit Students Encyclopedia asserts:

Barnabas, Saint, an Apostle of Christ. Born
Joseph, 1st century A.D. died about 60 A.D. (...). St. Barnabas is
ranked as an Apostle even though he was not one of the 12 Apostles.[22]

Everyman's Encyclopaedia has also stated that
Barnabas was martyred in Cypriot city of Salamis in AD 61.[23]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia has also expressed the similar views:

Death apparently came to him after Paul wrote of
him, as though still alive, in I Corinthian 9.6 [in AD 55 or 56], and before
Paul wrote to the Colossians [between AD 60 and 63] that Mark was now his
colaborer (Col 4.10).[24]

It has thus been made clear that Barnabas died in
ca. AD 61 whereas the 'Gospel According to Matthew' was written decades of years
after it: ca AD 85-90; but not before AD 70. Even the 'Gospel According to
Mark', which is considered to be the source of Matthew's Gospel, was written
years after the death of Barnabas.

The New Encyclopaedia Britannica writes:

Barnabas' reputed tomb, was discovered in 488, is
near the Monastery of St Barnabas, in the Cypriot city of Salamis, whose
Christian community was founded by Paul and Barnabas.[25]

The 1907 edition of Britannica has recorded the
name of the Byzantine Emperor, during whose reign the dead body of Barnabas was
discovered, as Zeno (Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire from AD 474 to 491).[26]
New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

(...); his body
was later found with his own hand-written copy of Matthew's Gospel over his
heart.[27]

We have another report by 'Acta Sanctorum'
that the manuscript discovered from his tomb was the gospel of Barnabas written
with his own hand.[28]

It has been reported in the "Life of St. Barnabas"
that the body of Barnabas was placed in a cave 1Â½ mile from Salamis. The
manuscript of the 'Gospel according to Matthew', written with the author's own
hand, was found on his bosom. The dead body was recovered intact during the
reign of Emperor Zeno with the Gospel on its chest. The manuscript of the
'Gospel according to Matthew', written by the author in his own handwriting, was
sent to Constantinople to be placed in the Emperor's Library. It was destroyed
among other valuables during the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks.[29]

A Turkish journal, 'Ilime ve Sanat Dergisi', had
published a write-up regarding the discovery of a ca. 19 centuries old Aramaic
manuscript of this Gospel. It was written by Dr. Hamzah Piktash and was
published in its issue of March-April, 1986. According to it a voluminous book
was found by some people in a cave near the Turkish town of Hakari in 1984. They
tore a leaf from it to get some information about it. They contacted Dr. Piktash
to identify the manuscript. It had been written in the Aramaic language in
Syriac script. It was written on Papyrus. Its dating revealed that it was
written circa 19 centuries back. On perusal it came to be the Gospel of Barnabas
written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. The discoverers left the
photocopy of its only one leaf with Dr. Piktash. They disappeared; and were
later arrested by the police while trying to smuggle it out. The manuscript was
given in the custody of the Govt. Dr. Piktash states that the text with him was
concordant with the English and Arabic translation of the Gospel of Barnabas to
a great extent.[30]

We have seen above that the 'Gospel According to
Matthew' was written many years after the death of Barnabas. How can it be
possible that he wrote a book (Gospel According to Matthew) with his own hands
which had actually been written many a year after his death and how can it be
got buried with him in his grave? Actually the Gospel found from his grave lying
over his heart was, and could only be, his own gospel, the Gospel of Barnabas,
written with his own hand.

There is
evidence which shows that the Gospel of Barnabas, which would have been written
by AD 51, had become commonly known in Christian community of NW. According to
McKenzie St. Paul wrote the Letter to the Galatians in AD 54.[31]
W. Smith says,

When he left Antioch, he "went over all the
country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples,"
(...). It is probable that the Epistle to the Galatians was written soon after
this visitÂ¯A.D. 56-57.[32]

The 7th Day Adventist BD, under the
entry 'Galatians, Epistle to the' says, '(...), the date of writing would be the
winter of A.D. 57-58, and the place of writing doubtless Corinth.'[33]
According to the New American Bible,

If it is addressed to the Galatians in the north,
the letter was probably written around A.D. 54 or 55, most likely from Ephesus
after Paul's arrival there for a stay of several years on his third missionary
journey.[34]

A New Catholic Commentary writes,

Nevertheless,
because of certain similarities of mood and tone and parallels in phraseology
with I Cor and Rm, many commentators with Benoit, ascribe Gal to a date about
the same as Rm, i.e. c. A.D. 56.[35]

It is thus clear that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to
the Galatians sometime between AD 54 and 58, whereas the Gospel of Barnabas had
been written in c.51. Paul writes in Galatians:

I am amazed that you are changing so soon from
the one who called you by means of (Christ's) grace, to a different gospel
which is not another one, only there are some unsettling you and willing to
pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven were to
proclaim the gospel [to you] differently than how we proclaimed the gospel to
you, let that one be anathema [accursed]. As we have just said, and as I now
say once again: If anyone should proclaim the gospel to you contrary to what
you have received, let him be anathema![36]

A footnote has been inserted to these verses
saying:

Paul is declaring in the strongest manner that
the gospel he preaches is the one and only way to salvation, and that to
preach another gospel is to nullify the death of Christ. Paul's curse reminds
the readers of the absolute truth of his gospel.[37]

Obviously Paul is pointing to some other "gospel"
in these verses of the Epistle to the Galatians. This Epistle to the Galatians
was not written before ca. AD 54 to 58. There did not exist any of the 4 gospels
by that time. Therefore the word "gospel" here means the doctrines which Paul
had designed and was preaching. On the other hand the Gospel of Barnabas had
already been compiled in ca. AD 51. It was only Barnabas who was preaching some
"gospel" contrary to that of Paul's. It can thus be appreciated that Paul
indicated to the "Gospel of Barnabas" in his Epistle to the Galatians. It makes
quite clear that there existed the "Gospel of Barnabas" prior to AD 54-58,
before any of the 4 gospels had been compiled.

All the above discourse makes it abundantly clear
that:

Barnabas had died in ca. AD 61.

The 'Gospel According to Matthew', The 'Gospel
According to Mark', and all the other Gospels, were written after his death.
None of the Gospels had been written during the lifetime of Barnabas.

The dead body of Barnabas was discovered in AD
488 from the Cypriot city of Salamis.

A manuscript of a Gospel was found in his tomb
lying on his heart. Scholars identify it in three different ways: (a) that it
was the Gospel of Barnabas written with his own hand [as stated in the 'Acta
Sanctorum']. (b) that it was the 'Gospel according to Matthew' written by
Matthew himself with his own hand [as stated in the "Life of St. Barnabas"].
(c) that it was the 'Gospel according to Matthew' written by Barnabas [as
stated in the "New Catholic Encyclopedia"].

As regards the options (b) and (c) above, they
are absolutely impossible as the 'Gospel according to Matthew' was written
many years after the death of Barnabas.

It could naturally have been the Gospel of
Barnabas and none other than it. It may have been in the Aramaic language, the
language used by Jesus Christ.

This manuscript was sent to Constantinople
(Istanbul of today) to be preserved in the Emperor's Library.

An Aramaic Manuscript of the Gospel of Barnabas
dating to the first century AD was discovered in a Turkish town, Hakari in AD
1984.

Most probably it may have been the same MS. found
from the tomb of Barnabas in AD 488 near the Cypriot city of Salamis or some
manuscript copied from it.

Paul has referred to some "gospel" in his Epistle
to the Galatians and this Epistle was written ca. AD 54-58. None of the 4
gospels had been written by that time. Paul could have naturally pointed only
to the "Gospel of Barnabas", which according to him, preached some "gospel"
contrary to his own teachings.

It is now unto the reader himself to draw a
reasonable conclusion from the above data.

There is a "Catalogue of the 60 Canonical
Books" (instead of the present canon of 66 books). It has given a list
of 25 apocryphal books as well. "The Gospel according to Barnabas"
has been recorded in it at Serial No. 24.[38]
It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity
and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.

How could some Muslim scholar have written it? It
was discovered by the Christians, it was introduced to the world by the
Christians, and it was published by the Christians. The Muslims knew nothing
about this "Gospel of Barnabas" until George Sale (AD 1697-1736)
mentioned it[39]
in the prologue (To The Reader) of his English translation of the Qur'an (AD
1734), named "Alkoran of Mohammed".[40]
Then they got their foremost opportunity of going through it after its English
translation was first published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford in 1907. Before
its introduction by the Christian scholars in 1907, the Muslim scholars had no
approach to it. All the Muslim literature, throughout the centuries, is void of
any quotation from this Gospel. Had they known it, they must have profusely
quoted from it, because it testified the Prophet of Islam by name.

Why the modern Christians do not own and accept it:
simply because there is a lot in it which does not agree with their ideals[41]
and because there are in it a number of prophecies regarding the Prophet of Islam
by his very name in unequivocal terms. There might be some later alterations,
adulterations, and interpolations in it like almost all the other books of the
Bible. There might have also been some misunderstandings or confusions of the
writer himself in it. But its existence as a book written by Barnabas cannot be
denied. Its subject matter, its language, its confident style, its exhaustive
material on important themes which is elsewhere unavailable, and its
presentation of the logical and reasonable themes are superior to the 4 Gospel
of the NT of the Bible. It is unfortunate on the part of the Christians that
they have deprived themselves of this valuable treasure of religious knowledge.
Here are some excerpts regarding only the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (sws), from
Lonsdale & Laura Ragg's "The Gospel of Barnabas(although there
are so many other valuable themes in it which ought to be brought to light to
benefit the reader of today, but it may be a theme of a separate and independent
article.):

Some
Prophecies about Muhammad (sws)

in the
Gospel of Barnabas

But after me shall come the Splendour[42]
of all the prophets and holy ones, and shall shed light upon the darkness of
all that the prophets have said, because he is the messenger of God.[43]

Verily I say unto you, that every prophet when he is come
hath borne to one nation only the mark of the mercy of God. And so their words
were not extended save to that people to which they were sent. But the
messenger of God, when he shall come[44]
[stress added] God shall give him as it were the seal of His hand, insomuch
that he shall carry salvation and mercy to all the nations of the world that
shall receive his doctrine.[45]
He shall come with power upon the ungodly, and shall destroy idolatry,[46]
insomuch that he shall make Satan confused; for so promised God to Abraham,
saying: "Behold, in thy seed I will bless all the tribes of the earth; and as
thou hast broken in pieces the idols, O Abraham, even so shall thy seed do."
James answered: 'O master, tell us in whom this promise was made; for the Jews
say "in Isaac," and the Ishmaelites say "in Ishmael." ' (...). Believe me, for
verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac [For
it is a fact that no prophet from the progeny of Isaac can be claimed ever to
have broken in pieces the idols as Abraham had broken them in pieces].[47]

I therefore say unto you that the messenger of
God is a splendour that shall give gladness to nearly all that God hath made,
for he is adorned with the spirit of understanding and of counsel, the spirit
of wisdom and might, the spirit of fear and love, the spirit of prudence and
temperance; the spirit of justice and piety, the spirit of gentleness and
patience,[48]
(...). O blessed time, when he shall come to the world![49]
(...). And when I saw him my soul was filled with consolation, saying: "O
Mohammed, God be with thee.[50]

Jesus answered: '(...). As for me, I am now come to
the world to prepare the way for the messenger of God, who shall bring
salvation to the world. (...).' Then said Andrew: 'Master, tell us some sign,
that we may know him.' Jesus answered: 'He will not come in your time, but
will come some years after you, when my gospel shall be annulled insomuch that
there shall be scarcely thirty faithful.[51]
At that time God will have mercy on the world, and so he will send his
messenger, (...). He shall come with great power against the ungodly, and shall
destroy idolatry upon the earth[52].
And it rejoiceth me because that through him our God shall be known and
glorified, and I shall be known to be true; and he will execute vengeance
against those who shall say that I am more than man. Verily I say to you that
the moon shall minister sleep to him in his boyhood,[53]
and when he shall be grown up he shall take her [the moon] in his hands.[54]
(...). He shall come with truth[55]
more clear than that of all the prophets, (...); and so when idolatry shall be
seen to fall to the ground and confess me a man like other men, verily I say
unto you the messenger of God shall be come.[56]

Jesus answered: 'The name of the Messiah is
admirable[57],
for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it
in a celestial splendour. God said: "Wait Mohammed; (...). When I shall send
thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy
word shall be true[58],
insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail but thy faith shall never fail."
Mohammed is his blessed name.'[59]

Whereupon I am sure that he who shall sell me[60]
shall be slain in my name, for that God shall take me up from the earth, and
shall change the appearance of the traitor[61]
so that everyone shall believe him to be me; nevertheless, when he dieth an
evil death, I shall abide in that dishonour[62]
for a long time in the world. But when Mohammed shall come, the sacred
messenger of God, that infamy shall be taken away. And this shall God do
because I have confessed the truth of the Messiah; who shall give me this
reward, that I shall be known to be alive and to be a stranger to that death
of infamy.'[63]

[12] As asserted in the NIV Study Bible in
its introduction to this 'I Corinthians' on page 1734, 'The letter was
written c. 55 toward the close of Paul's 3-year residency in Ephesus (see
16:5-9; Ac 20:31).'

[13] As stated by The Nelson Study Bible, p.
1911, 'he wrote it in the last year of his three-year stay in Ephesus,
sometime in the spring of A.D. 56.'

[29] S.A.E., Life of St. Barnabas, A Sketch
for Nurses, London, W. Knott, Holborn, n.a., p. 84: as quoted by Mr. Bashir
Mahmud Akhtar, in his M. Phil. Thesis (at A.I.O.U., Islamabad) on this
subject, 1990, p. 35. This booklet has been preserved in the British Museum
Library; and the writer of the Thesis, Mr. Bashir Mahmud Akhtar, had himself
seen it there.

[39] As stated by the editors of 'The Gospel
of Barnabas', Lonsdale and Laura Ragg, in their introduction to the book,
p.xvi,

"the Moslems themselves who boast, under the
title of Barnabas, the possession of the only true and authentic
Gospel, derive their knowledge of the existence of the 'Gospel of
Barnabas' solely from Sale's Preface and Preliminary Discourse, of which
they are known to possess a translation."

They have further elaborated their claim at
page xlviii, xlix that the Muslims were unaware of the existence of any
'Gospel of Barnabas' before the publication of Sale's work. They assert,

"Against the supposition that the Gospel of
Barnabas ever existed in Arabic we must set the argument from silence from
such a Gospel in the Polemical literature of the Moslems. This has been
admirably cataloged by Stein-schneider in his monograph on the subject in
the Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 1877. Of the works
enumerated by him, 3, belonging to very different periods, are accessible
in printed editions. To the writers of all these treatises the Gospel of
Baranabas would have been very welcomed, but the fame of it had not
reached their ears.

The
earliest of them is Ibn Hazm (obit. 456 A.H.), whose fis~al fi-l-milal wal-ahwa#
wal-nih~al was printed in Cairo a few years
ago (part I., 1317 A.H.) " He condemns the four Evangelists with much vehemence,
and declares that the names of the Apostles are quite unknown.

The
treatise of Ibn Taimyyah (obit. 728 A.H.) was published in Cairo last
year: it is called Al-Jawab
al Sahih liman Baddala din al-Masih.
He is far less virulent than his predecessors, and assigns a certain
amount of genuineness to our four Gospels. But he has no suspicion of the
existence of a Gospel favouring the Prophet as does the Gospel of
Baranabas.

The
treatise of Abu 'l-Fad~l
al-Su'u#di (composed
942 A.H., and based on the earlier work of abu 'l-Baka
Salih al-Ja'fari) was
published at Leyden, 1877-92, with the title Disputatio pro religione
Muhammedana adversus Christianos. The author deals with the Four
Gospels, the genesis of which he appears to assume, though he regards the
Christian interpretation as erroneous.

A work in which we might certainly have
expected to find some allusion to an Arabic Gospel of Barnabas, if such
existed, is the bibliography of Hajji Khalifah (obit. A.H. 1067, 1656-7
A.D.). Under the heading Injil he gives the names of the four Evangelists,
and asserts, as many others assert, that the Gospel of 'Isa#
ibn Maryam must have been quite different. But he knows of no Baranabas.

The conjecture that any knowledge which the
Indian Moslems may possess of the Gospel of Barnabas is due to Sale's
Koran seems to me highly probable, if not certain.

The book
is a moderate quarto, in Spanish, written in a very legible hand, but a
little damaged towards the latter end. It contains two hundred and
twenty-two chapters of unequal length, and four hundred and twenty pages;
and is said, in the front, to be translated from the Italian, by an
Arrogonian Moslem, named Mustafa de Aranda. There is a preface prefixed to
it, wherein the discoverer of the original MS., who was a Christian monk,
called Fra Marino, tells us that having accidentally met with a writing of
Irenaeus (among others), wherein he speaks against St. Paul, alleging, for
his authority, the Gospel of Barnabas, he became exceeding[ly]
desirous to find this gospel; and that God, of His mercy, having made him
very intimate with Pope Sixtus V [b.1521 d.90, Pope from 1585], one day,
as they were together in that Pope's library, his Holiness fell asleep,
and he, to employ himself, reaching down a book to read, the first he laid
his hand on proved to be the very gospel he wanted: overjoyed at the
discovery, he scrupled not to hide his prize in his sleeve, and on the
Pope's waking, took leave of him, carrying with him that celestial
treasure, by reading of which he became a convert to Mohammedanism.

This
Gospel of Barnabas contains a complete history of Jesus Christ from his
birth to his ascension; and most of the circumstances in the four real
gospels are to be found therein, but many of them turned, and some
artfully enough, to favour the Mohammedan system. From the design of the
whole, and the frequent interpolations of stories and passages wherein
Mohammed is spoken of and foretold by name, as the messenger of God, and
the great prophet who was to perfect the dispensation of Jesus, it appears
to be a most barefaced forgery [What a reason to pronounce it a
'most barefaced forgery'!]. one
particular I observe therein induces me to believe it to have been dressed
up by a renegade Christian, slightly instructed in his new religion, and
not educated a Mohammedan (unless the fault be imputed to the Spanish,
or perhaps the Italian translator, and not to the original compiler
[stress added]); I mean the giving to Mohammed the title of Messiah, and
that not once or twice only, but in several places; whereas the title of
Messiah, or, as the Arabs write it, al-Masih, i.e., Christ, is
appropriated to Jesus in the Koran, and is constantly applied by the
Mohammedans to him, and never to their own prophet [it is strange that rather than
taking it as a proof to the fact that this gospel cannot have been written
by a Muslim, the worthy scholar takes it unreasonably to a quite contrary
theme!]. (George Sale,
Alkoran of Mohammed, London & NY, Frederick Warne & Co., n.a., p.
ix,x under 'To the Reader')

[41] For example, in the introductory
paragraph or the prologue of this Gospel, Barnabas writes:

Barnabas, apostle of Jesus of Nazarene,
called Christ, to all them that dwell upon the earth desireth peace and
consolation.

Dearly beloved, the great and wonderful God
hath during these past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ in
great mercy of teaching and miracles, by reason whereof many, being
deceived of Satan, under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious
doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained
of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul
hath been deceived, whereof I speak not without grief; for which cause I
am writing that truth which I have seen and heard, in the intercourse that
I have had with Jesus, in order that ye may be saved, and not be deceived
of Satan and perish in the judgement of God. (Lonsdale & Laura Ragg, "The
Gospel of Barnabas" Edited and Translated From the Italian MS.in the
Imperial Library at Vienna, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1907, p.3).

Barnabas ends his gospel, in chapter CCXXII, in
the following words:

For certain evil men, pretending to be
disciples, preached that Jesus died and rose not again. Others preached
that he really died, but rose again. Others preached, and yet preach, that
Jesus is the son of God, among whom is Paul deceived. ("The Gospel of
Barnabas", op.cit., p.489.)

[44]
The futurity is particularly to be noticed, which means that the
messenger is to come after Jesus Christ. The phrase 'Messenger of God' (in
Arabic language: Rasulullah)
is also to be noted. It is the specific epithet of the Prophet of Islam. Now
it is a fact that nobody has successfully claimed to be the prophet or
'Messenger of God' after Jesus Christ except the Prophet of Islam,
Muhammad (sws).

[45] And it is a historical fact. There had
been no universal prophet before the Prophet of Islam. It is only Muhammad (sws)
who has categorically asserted, as directed to him in the Qur'an by the
Almighty, 'O humankind! I am the Messenger of God towards all of you.' (Al-A'raaf,
vii:158)

[46] This is also a historical fact. Prophet
Muhammad (sws) came with power and got all the idols of Ka'bah broken to
pieces at the time of the Conquest of Makkah, and, afterwards, banned and
destroyed every form of idolatry by force. The theme has been dilated upon
later while exploring the 'Prophecy Regarding the Prophet of Islam in the
"Assumption of Moses".

[48] What a true and compact picture of the
traits of the Prophet of Islam! Every word depicts the actual and exact
qualities of the Prophet of Islam, which have been described in hundreds of
pages by the Muslim and non-Muslim scholars the world over. The material for
their description has been taken from the reliable compilations on biography
and collections of the traditions of the Prophet of Islam. The record of
these sources had been related to the compilers of these collections through
the complete and continuous (without any break) chain of narrators from the
primary eye-witnesses to the last narrator. It is remarkable that the
credibility of every narrator or reporter of the traditions of the Prophet
of Islam has been objectively judged and recorded in the books on "Asma
al-Rijal", i.e. 'the qualities of the reporting persons' etc. The traits
described in the Gospel are in complete accord with actual qualities of the
Prophet of Islam related in these sources.

[49] It is remarkable how respectably esteems
Jesus the era of the Prophet of Islam and how ardently welcomes and blesses
him.

[53] The Prophet of Islam
was born orphan, as his father, 'Abd Allah, had died before his birth. He
was assigned to Halimah Sa'diyah to nurse and breast-feed him. So he was
brought up in the open atmosphere of Bani Sa'd. He could not enjoy the
lullaby of his mother, and, as such, 'the moon ministered sleep to him in
his boyhood'. His mother also passed away when he was still a boy of six
years and he was deprived of the shelter of his parents just in his boyhood.

[54] It points to the miracle of the
splitting of the moon (The Qur'a#n
- ch. LIV: v.1 'The Moon'). One part of the moon came in his hand.

[55] No doubt every prophet came with truth,
but the qualities of truth and honesty were so glaringly and
characteristically conspicuous in the Prophet of Islam that he was known
with the epithets of 'the Truthful', and 'the Honest' even
before his being appointed as 'Prophet'. His sworn enemy, Abu Sufyan, when
he was chief of the pagans of Makkah and their supreme military commander in
their struggle against Muhammad (sws), bore witness before the Roman Emperor
to that effect. Even his worst enemies like Abu Jahl etc would say,
"Muhammad, we do not blame you of falsehood, but your defiance of idols and
asserting the monotheism is something which is not acceptable to us.

[57]The Arabic word 'Muhammad(sws)' is derived from the
triliteral root 'H+M+D', which means, 'to praise, commend, laud, extol'
(Hans Wehr's A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, SLS Inc., NY, 1976,
p.204). The word 'Muhammad(sws)' means, 'praised;
commendable, laudable' (ibid, p. 204). 'Hammada' is from another 'form'
(the Arabic word for this 'form' is 'Ba#b',
which literally means, 'door or gate') of the same root word. It means, 'He
praised much, with good forms of praise; or repeatedly; or time after time'
(E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, The Islamic Texts Society Trust,
Cambridge, 1984, Vol. I, p. 639). The word 'Muhammad',
according to the same Lane's Lexicon, means, 'A man praised much, or
repeatedly, or time after time: endowed with many praiseworthy qualities'
(ibid, p.640).

[58] Prophet Muhammad (sws) was so notable
for his being true that "The Truthful" became his common title
or agname among the Arabs.

[62] The Christian say, 'Jesus died an
accursed death', the Jews say, 'We got him executed as a convict';
whereas the Qur'an asserts,

'and
for their [Jews'] unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty
calumny, and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary,
the Messenger of God'Æ’Â¢Â¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Â¬Â¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Â yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him,
only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance
concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge
of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of
certaintyÆ’Â¢Â¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Â¬Â¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Âno indeed; God raised him up to Him; God is Al-mighty, All-wise.
(...). And for the evildoing of those of Jewry, (...). We have prepared for
the unbelievers among them a painful chastisement. But those of them that
are firmly rooted in knowledge, and the believers believing in what has
been sent down to thee, and what was sent down before thee, that perform
the prayer and pay the alms, and those who believe in God and the Last
DayÆ’Â¢Â¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Â¬Â¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Âthem We shall surely give a mighty wage.' (Arthur J. Arberry, The
Koran Interpreted, Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 95 f.)

Despite the undeniable contribution of religion to human welfare, it threatens to be
seriously divisive, especially if limits of disagreement amongst religious
people are not properly respected. Whereas diversity of religious traditions can
ideally help people in comparing the relative strengths of the teachings of
their respective faiths and in adjusting accordingly, religious bigotry -- the
tendency to claim truthfulness of one's own faith and treating all others as
worthy of condemnation -- leads not only to suffering for many, it also results
in drawing many people away from the idea of taking religion seriously. Although
in the recent past religious bigotry was beginning to appear less pronounced,
many events have led the conscientious people of the world to realize that the
monster is very much alive. The bloody civil war in Bosnia, the horrible events
of September 11, 2001 and their consequent aftermath, the lingering bloodshed in
Israel and Palestine, the unending manifestations of hatred between Hindus and
Muslims in India and many other similar unfortunate examples around our
misery-stricken world strongly beg all religious groups of the world to urgently
attend to the curse of extreme religious bigotry.

This paper addresses the question of how to deal with religious diversity from an
Islamic perspective. It has been divided into five parts. Part one is the
introduction. The second part describes the three important responses to the
phenomenon of religious diversity. It is accompanied by a mention of the
strengths and weaknesses of each of these approaches. The third part mentions an
Islamic approach to the solution of the problem.[1]
The fourth part mentions three criticisms on that solution and my responses to
them. The fifth part concludes the paper.

Approaches to Deal With the Phenomenon of Religious Diversity

Exclusivist Approach:

The most commonly known
approach on religious diversity is the one followed by Religious Exclusivists
who imagine that they are the sole custodians of religious truth to the complete
exclusion of all others. It were the followers of this approach amongst
Christians, for instance, who sent an open letter in September 1991 to all
Clergy in the Church of England and the Church of Wales claiming that salvation
is offered only through Jesus Christ who is the only savior and the only way to
God. [2] Similar strong Exclusivist
views are to be found amongst Muslims and Jews as well. The Qur'an mentions
the Exclusivist approach of the Jews and the Christians of the Arabian society
at the time of its revelation thus: "They claim: No one shall enter the
paradise except the one who is Jew or Christian." Ironically, the same
Exclusivist approach has been adopted by many Muslims who claim that it is only
they who shall enter the paradise. They claim that their understanding is based
on the Qur'anic teachings which mention that all Kuffar (plural of Kafir)
will enter the hell. Many Muslims understand that since all non-Muslims are Kafir,
therefore all of them are destined to the hell.[3]

The basic problem with the Exclusivist approach is that it prevents the believer in
a particular religious tradition from conceding that adherents of other
traditions can have any possibility of following some version of religious truth
to any degree. This leaves hardly any room for imagining that salvation in the
afterlife is possible for those who don't formally believe in the
Exclusivist's faith. The consequent understanding of hopelessness in the
religious status of non-believers that naturally results can at times lead to
hatred against them which in its worst manifestation expresses itself in the
form of violence. Even if an Exclusivist is peaceful and apparently respectful
towards people belonging to other faiths, he is not doing so as a consequence of
his genuine understanding that the other person deserves it. He only does it as
an unavoidable social adjustment or as a part of a cleverly contrived long-term
strategy of undoing the other faiths.[4]
Commitment to the Exclusivist approach by a group of people is a potential
dynamite that can explode any time if exploited by a misled religious leader or
a political opportunist.

However, it could be mentioned on the positive side of the Exclusivist approach that it
enables the believer to have the much needed confidence in the ultimate truth of
his belief. Khan has rightly pointed out that the only purpose of religious
truth is to provide man with confidence. Man desperately needs confidence of
certainty to live in this world. Religious truth provides him with exactly that.[5]
In case of absence of conviction, a religious belief is reduced to a mere
philosophical hypothesis or the final product of a confused collection of a few
spiritual experiences.

The critics of this approach fear that this much-applauded attribute of Exclusivists
brings along with it the dreaded feeling of negation of other faiths, or else
the confidence that the believer is seeking would be unachievable. However, I
will show it later that this conclusion is not necessarily the only possible
result which may proceed from an Exclusivist approach.[6]

Inclusivist Approach:

In an Inclusivist approach, the presenter accepts the right of other faiths to
survive side by side with the faith of the Inclusivist, despite not accepting
their validity. It allows them reasonable breathing space and the possibility to
exist with dignity.

The Vatican, for instance, adopted the policy of Religious Inclusivism through its
Decree of 1967 which expressed sentiments of cordiality for other important
world religions. Words of sympathy were reserved in the decree even for those
who choose to follow the approach of Atheism.[7]

There are, however, some scholars who believe that Religious Inclusivism despite being
a welcome improvement on Religious Exclusivism doesn't go far enough to
address the menace of religious bigotry. They believe that there is a tendency
in it to see other faiths as good in so far as they have points in common with
Christianity. The Inclusive position remains convinced of its own superiority,
even though it recognizes how much it has in common with other faiths and with
all people of good will. Inclusivism goes a long way but not far enough.[8]

Badham's criticism of Christian Inclusivists is only partly valid. It is not quite fair
to claim that the Vatican Decree acknowledges the existence of other faiths only
in so far as they have points in common with Christianity. His observation is
correct when one views the Decree's approach towards Muslims and Jews.
However, the magnanimity of the Decree in accommodating Atheists,[9]
who share nothing with the basic understanding of Christianity, the Vatican has
done enough to escape Badham's criticism.

I disagree with the basic spirit of the Vatican Decree on account of its
inconsistency with the Biblical teachings. The New Testament of the Bible states
thus: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." [10]
If the Christians believe this understanding to be correct, they should not
expend their energies to unnecessarily vindicate other faiths. After all, if
Jesus Christ is the only saviour for the humans, desperate efforts should be
made by Christians to ensure that those who don't accept that understanding
should be made to believe in it. Praising the 'misleading' teachings of
non-Christian faiths should be seen by committed Christians as an attempt to
guide the non-Christians towards destruction. The polite and accommodating tone
of the Vatican Decree doesn't seem to be doing justice with the real spirit of
the Biblical text.

Pluralist Approach:

According to the Pluralist approach, all important religions are genuine human responses
to the same Transcendental Reality, even though influenced by the respective
cultural environments of the religious leaders. Thus all of them are
simultaneously correct, and all offer important insights into the understanding
of the Ultimate.

Religious Pluralism is claimed to be "a totally open-ended search for truth based on the
assumption that all the major religions of humanity have insights to offer, and
it must also accept that much of the secular critique of traditional religion,
is justified and needs to be taken on board also."[11]
The Pluralist position rejects both Exclusivism and Inclusivism and calls for
genuine Religious Pluralism.

According to an explanation of the rationale of Religious Pluralism, in this religiously
ambiguous world both faith and non-faith may be equally valid responses. The
issue has to be decided on the basis of the individual's own experience, or
non-experience, of transcendent reality. The person of faith may feel justified
in believing as he does, because that is how they interpret some of their most
precious experiences. In the final analysis, all our thinking about the nature
of reality is interpreted on the basis of our experiences.[12]

The Pluralist solution of religious diversity has been rejected by Khan, who
maintains that truth can never be plural. If truth is not singular, it is not
truth. There isn't any logical truth in the theory of Religious Pluralism.
Even though harmony amongst humans is indeed essential, it cannot be achieved
through artificial slogans like 'I am on the truth, likewise you too.' The
only right way of achieving harmony is to consider all people worthy of respect.
The right formula leading to religious unity is: 'Follow one, respect all.'[13]

Khan, however, doesn't offer any methodology of inculcating the basic spirit that
would inspire that respect. You don't show respect to others for nothing. If
respect is not inspired by a true theoretical clarity, it is bound to be
shallow, artificial, and brittle. It is likely to whither away under pressure.
Many religious people reject others as not worthy of their respect because they
believe that those others reject their perception of religious truth. Something
needs to be done to pacify that feeling or else respect for other faiths would
remain an unrealizable dream.

Pluralism is not an acceptable approach, because it assumes that all religions are
simultaneously correct, which is an obvious absurdity. An individual seeks
religion to get definite answers to the problems he is facing. The problems that
religion helps in solving can't be solved through half-certain answers.
Uncertain answers to questions like purpose of life, truth about life beyond
death, and expectations of our Creator from us are in fact no answers. The
suggestion that God has manifested His will to different people in different
ways is, at best, confusing. It is in the very nature of the questions that
religion seeks to respond that answers to them should be offered in most certain
terms. Uncertain answers are as good as no answers. It is the task of religion
to inspire confidence in the believer. Failure to do so would push a
certainty-seeking religious person into an uncertain territory of philosophy,
which may claim to enjoy the luxury of objective reflection, but is devoid of
the pleasures of confidence that emerges from religious certainty.

An example would clarify my point. The New Testament of the Bible mentions the
claim that Jesus is the son of God.[14]
Qur'an on the contrary clearly rejects the possibility that God can have a
son.[15]
The two claims cannot be simultaneously correct. Moreover, these claims do not
seem to be influenced by the respective cultural environments of the religious
leaders. They are confident, though conflicting, claims about a religious
position.

There is no doubt, however, that it is this element of certainty in religion that is
the cause of many of its problems as well. Those who believe that what their
message is mentioning is the ultimate truth do so to the complete exclusion of
any possibility of respect for all other faiths. This gives rise to bigotry
amongst believers. In most cases people belonging to one religious tradition
don't realize that their counterparts in other traditions are equally
confident about the certainty of their own version of religion. Badham rightly
believes that this understanding is often the result of a complete absence of
interaction with people belonging to other faiths. [16]

The above discussion gives rise to an important question. How could one be certain
whether what one is following is the true message of his God? The answer is that
an individual would need to be objective in examining the teachings of his faith
to inspire within him confidence about its veracity. This objective appraisal
would indeed raise questions that would seek answers. The answers would either
satisfy the believer to confirm his confidence in his faith still further, or
else would weaken it and as a consequence he would be inclined to look for the
other alternative explanations. This struggle would continue until such time
that the seeker after truth would either get relative certainty or else he would
continue his journey.

This quest for truth is helped by the preaching efforts of believers of other faiths.
An intelligent preacher would not only be conveying his own message to others
but would also be objectively receiving message from those others as well. Thus
believers of different faiths can enter into meaningful dialogue for mutual
benefit. The possibility of such exchanges are severely curtailed by the
understanding of Religious Pluralism, which takes away the sense of urgency from
the believer who considers the other religious explanations equally valid too.

One might ask whether there is ever a realistic possibility of such exchanges of
religious views. Does it really ever happen that way? The answer is in the
affirmative. It does happen amongst religious people in many cases. That is what
explains the phenomenon of conversions that continue to take place on a regular
basis all throughout the world. If one were to accept the explanation of
Religious Pluralists, then all the religions of the world would become strictly
inward looking in religious matters and would cease to attempt any possibilities
of influencing people of other faiths. That would indeed deprive religion and
its followers of the vibrant spirit of serving their faith that keeps them
motivated. It would be a tragedy to kill that spirit because of the fear that
its misuse could cause damage. The fact that aeroplanes do sometimes crash
doesn't lead us to conclude that we should do away with them. What is
attempted instead is that more measures are introduced so that the frequency of
such accidents could be minimized. Likewise should be our attitude towards
exchange of religious views and preaching.

This process also ensures that religious beliefs of people do not remain the end
result of the process of brain-washing but should be the outcome of intelligent
choice-making. It is this process of preaching and exchanges of religious views
that enables the intelligent believer to feel confident that he is not believing
in his faith as a consequence of being subjected to the process of one-sided
propaganda for his faith and that he is not being negatively brain-washed
against other faiths due to his ignorance. He would know, and many religious
people do know, that his faith is the end result of a process of exchange and
voluntary selection.

The questions that remain unanswered are: i) Is there any one version of true
religion? ii) If yes, then are all other versions untrue? iii) Is it always
guaranteed that if a person undertakes an earnest effort to know the ultimate
truth, he would get it? iv) If that cannot be guaranteed, then what is the
purpose of any such version of the ultimate truth? v) Is the individual who
despite sincere efforts failed to embrace the correct version of the ultimate
truth to be blamed for his failure?

The next section would attempt to answer these questions from an Islamic perspective.

Islamic Approach:

Muslims have normally been considered Religious Exclusivists, who would not consider
people of other faiths worthy of respect for their religious commitments. This
author believes that although this view truly reflects the attitude of many -
though not necessarily most - Muslims it is not consistent with the correct
understanding of the teachings of Islam. The following presentation attempts to
show how Islamic teachings propose to tackle the issue of religious plurality.

Islam, on the one hand takes a firm position in claiming that its teachings are the
true version of reality from God, on the other hand it also calls for genuine
respect for all non-Muslims. Even though a person influenced by the
understanding of Religious Pluralism may not be immediately impressed by this
view, a better understanding of the various verses of Qur'anon the subject
would suggest that not only is it the correct Islamic understanding, this
position can be supported rationally as well.

Man started his religious journey with utmost clarity. This clarity was gifted to
him by God a priori. However, because the temporary worldly life was
meant to be a trial, humans were granted freedom. This freedom inclined them to
differ and disagree in religious matters. In response, God sent prophets who
confirmed what was right and rejected what was wrong. In the presence of the
prophets, their addressees could see religious reality in its pristine form and
therefore they had no justifiable excuse to reject it. Those who rejected it
were declared, after an adequate time of effective preaching had passed, Kafir,
which means a person who denies the truth from God despite knowing it to be from
Him.[17] Some of these prophets
were Rasul (messengers), which is a status higher than the rest of the
prophets, who are called Nabi.[18]
In case of a Rasul, if his nation rejected him, it got destroyed in this
world, either through natural calamities or through the military might of
believers. In times when prophets are not present, neither anyone can be
described a Kafir nor can he be punished in this world for not believing
in a message brought by a messenger, because of the existence of the possibility
that the message may not have been properly and fully delivered by the
non-prophet preachers. Believers are therefore expected to only preach
intelligently in the absence of prophets. Since Muhammad was the last Rasul
(and Nabi), the possibility of anyone getting labeled as a Kafir
or punished for his disbelief after his death is eliminated for ever.

While they are preaching, believers are expected to show respect to other faiths and
behave in a manner that would not tarnish the image of their own religion. In
case a non-Muslim (or a disgruntled Muslim) is drawn away from Islam because of
a Muslim's poor behaviour, the latter will be held responsible for his
misconduct and its consequences. The Qur'an says: "Call them to the path of
your Lord with wisdom and words of good advice, and reason with them in the best
way possible. Your Lord surely knows who stray from His path, and He knows those
who are guided the right way." [19]
In another passage it says: "So do not make your oaths a means for deceiving
one another, lest a foot should slip after having found its hold, and you taste
of evil for having hindered (others) from the way of God, and suffer a grievous
punishment."[20] Politeness, concern,
respect, and tolerance are therefore at the heart of a Muslim's desired
behaviour towards non-Muslims.

Qur'anic Evidence of the Given Understanding:

All humans had the same religion. It was freedom of choice given to them
that led to differences. Prophets were then sent to clarify the truth. Teachings
of prophets clarified truth beyond any possibility of doubt.

"Mankind were (to begin with)[21]
one community (then they differed among themselves), so God raised prophets, as
bearers of good tidings and as warners, and sent down with them the book
containing the truth that He might judge between the people wherein they
differed. (But then they began to differ about the Book), and none differed
about it except those to whom it was given, after clear signs had come to them,
out of jealousies among them."[22]

Those who deny the message from God do so deliberately and therefore are worthy of condemnation.

"Those to whom We gave (a part of) the Book (earlier) recognize him (i.e. Muhammad) as
they recognize their sons. But those who ruin their souls, they will not
believe."[24]

"when there came to them that which they knew (to be the truth) they rejected it.
Let the curse of God then be on the disbelievers."[25]

Non-Muslims are not necessarily always Kafir

Even during a certain stage in the presence of prophets, non-Muslims are not Kafir,
until such time that they deliberately reject their message.

"You shall see many of them (i.e. Jews and Christians) making friends with those who
disbelieve (against Muslims). Surely evil is that which their souls have sent on
before for themselves, so that God is displeased with them..."[26]

The above verse has not used the expression "those who disbelieve" (i.e. those
who are Kafir) for Jews and Christians, but only for those Arabs who had
already knowingly denied prophet Muhammad. The people of the Book (i.e. Jews and
Christians) are only accused of being more friendly with the disbelievers than
the believers (i.e. Muslims). In other words, there was a stage in the preaching
mission of prophet Muhammad when the non-believing Jews and Christianswere not categorized as disbelievers (i.e. Kafir)

So long as the Jews and Christians were not convinced about the authenticity of
Islam, they were required to follow the message they thought was from God.

"(Muhammad) If they (i.e. the people of the Book ) come to you (for judgment), judge between
them or (if you so choose) turn aside from them, they cannot harm you at all.
And if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed God loves those who
are just. And how do they make you their judge when they have with them the
Torah, wherein is God's judgment, yet in spite of that they turn their backs.
They are certainly not believers."[27]

It can be inferred from the above verse that an individual is acknowledged as a
believer so long as he honestly believes and sincerely follows what he thinks is
the truth. Qur'an is not condemning the people of the Book for not accepting
Islam in the above verse, even though the prophet was in their midst. It is
condemning them for not following a message they themselves claimed was from
God. That is what displeases God the most. Qur'an says "O believers, why do
you profess what you don't do? It is most hateful in the eyes of God that you
say what you don't practice."[28]

Some non-Muslims have in fact been praised in Qur'an for their good character and attitude.

"Among the people of the Book there are those who if you trust them with a treasure,
will return it to you; and among them there are those who, if you trust them
with a dinar, will not return it to you, unless you keep standing over them."[29]

"They are not all alike. Among the people of the Book there is a party who stand by
their covenant; they recite the Word of God in the hours of night and prostrate
themselves before Him. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin good and
forbid evil, and hasten to vie with one another in good works. And these are
among the righteous."[30]

"And surely among the People of the Book there are some who believe in God and in
what has been sent down to you and in what was sent down to them, humbling
themselves before Allah. They trade not the signs of God for a paltry price. It
is these who shall have their reward with their Lord. Surely God is swift in
settling account."[31]

Disbelievers (Kuffar) are bound to fail.

"Indeed those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book and the idolaters, will
be in the fire of Hell, abiding therein. They are the worst of creatures."[32]

Such statements as the one above, if not understood in the right context, result in
extreme form of religious Exclusivism and bigotry.

Well-meaning believers of different faiths have been promised paradise.

"Surely, those who believe (i.e. Muslims) and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians,[33] whoever (from among them)
believes in God[34]
and the last day and does good deeds, shall have their reward with their Lord,
and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve."[35]

Those not included in the above-mentioned list of people who have been promised
salvation in the hereafter are the ones who deny God and the Hereafter, or
don't perform good deeds.[36]
The significance of this statement is that while there could be reasons for
people not to accept messages of rightful prophets because of lack of proper
information, belief in God and the life hereafter and inclination to do good
deeds is naturally gifted in man. To turn one's back on them amounts to
revolting against one's God-given nature.

Concluding Remarks on Islamic Approach:

Although at the time of prophets, truth from God used to be so clearly manifested that
there was no possibility for anyone to deny it, and therefore those who did so
were considered worthy of being punished, no such claim could be made for the
non-prophetic periods. Muslims have therefore got to perform only one role:
preach and respect others for their faith, because they can never be sure
whether the other people have rejected or stayed away from accepting the message
of Islam despite knowing it to be from God.

This approach is different from Exclusivism in that it allows other faiths the space
to operate given the realization that full information about religious truth is
unavailable and it is not possible to deliver the religious message of Islam to
non-believers as effectively as prophets did. This approach is neither Religious
Inclusivism of the sort adopted by the Vatican Decree[37],
nor Religious Pluralism as proposed by Rowland Williams, John Hick, and Paul
Badham. It allows the believer to be as confident about his faith as an
Exclusivist, but requires him to be as tolerant in dealing with the people of
other faiths as a Pluralist. It is, in fact, a call for religious tolerance
because of the possibility of lack of proper communication of the true message
of God. Since no body knows whether the other individual has been communicated
the message of Islam properly, therefore, no Muslim has the right to condemn any
non-Muslim on grounds of religious differences.

Having mentioned that, I feel that an important question needs to be addressed: Why
have all these differences been allowed by the Almighty? John Hick has this to
say about it: "He ... has created us at an epistemic distance from Himself in
order that a response to Him can be genuinely free."[38]
This understanding comes close to the Qur'anic view on the subject insofar as
freedom is concerned. However the Qur'anic understanding would not entirely
agree with Hick's suggestion that we are at an epistemic distance from God.
The distance is there, but it varies from individual to individual in all
environments. It allows the individual to travel the distance in his journey
towards God freely within the constraints of his environment and intellectual
and spiritual potential. The important thing is that there is a level of
certainty which is achievable in this world. The Qur'an calls it 'Ilmul
Yaqin' (i.e. intellectual certainty).[39]
In other words, these differences are there because of differences in
circumstances and abilities. These differences were created to test the moral
possibilities of individuals in different circumstances. Qur'an says:

"And He it is Who has made you successors (of others) on the earth and has exalted
some of you over others in degrees of rank, that He may try you by that which He
has given you."[40]

Religious differences, in other words, were meant to see as to who performs well given his
own range of information constraints. Had He done it otherwise, it would have
amounted to use of force on His part, which would have defeated the very purpose
of conducting a free test. Qur'an says:

"And upon God rests (the showing of) the right way, and there are ways which deviate
(from the right course). And if He had (enforced ) His will, He would have
guided you all." [41]

The circumstantial differences will however not be allowed to influence the
all-important outcome in the life hereafter for the individual. According to the
Qur'an, each individual shall be rewarded or punished in the afterlife on the
basis of a judgment that will be made strictly in accordance with the
individual's circumstances. It says:

"God burdens not a soul beyond its capacity."[42]
"... No bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another. And that man will
have nothing but what he (himself) strives for."[43]

This understanding also helps in explaining why Muslims should behave differently in
their treatment of the non-Muslims despite the fact that the messengers in some
cases at least could be seen as inflicting apparently harsh treatment on their
opponents. The reason according to this explanation lies in the fact that those
who were treated that way were guilty of an extremely serious crime: denying the
message of God even after knowing that it was from Him. As for the non-believers
of the other periods, no one can be harmed for his faith due to the realization
of the other person's information constraints. This limitation was recognized
even at the time when Muhammad himself had preached with utmost clarity and was
ultimately required to inflict Divine punishment on the disbelievers for
knowingly rejecting God's message. Even at that time the Qur'an makes an
exception for the people who may not have received the message clearly. It says
thus:

"And if anyone of the idolaters seeks protection of you, grant him protection so that
he may hear the word of God; then convey him to his place of security. That is
because they are a people who have no knowledge."[44]

The teachings of Islam emphasize that there should be no religious persecution and
individuals should be allowed the liberty to choose and practice their religion
freely. A Muslim state is allowed or, in some cases, even religiously obliged to
undertake Jihad (war) against the society which is persecuting people because of
their beliefs. The Qur'an urges the believers thus:

"What has come upon you that you fight not in the cause of God and for the oppressed
men, women, and children, who pray: 'Get us out of this town, O Lord, whose
people are oppressors; so send us a friend by your will, and send us a
helper.'"[45]

The Qur'an expects similar force to be used to defend religious buildings of other
faiths as is desired to be used to defend Islamic places of worship. It says:

"And if God had not repelled some people by means of others, cloisters and churches
and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of God is oft remembered, would
surely have been destroyed. And God will, surely, help him who helps Him. God is
indeed Powerful, Mighty." [46]

Mention of Criticism:

The point of view stated above has been created from only a few verses of
the Qur'an. If the entire Qur'an is considered to form an opinion, then one
could find many verses which appear extremely intolerant towards non-Muslims.
What has been presented is only a one-sided picture which most fundamentalist
Muslims don't agree to and therefore they behave with non-Muslims in an
intolerant way. Even if the point of view mentioned in this paper was assumed to
be correctly reflecting the Qur'anic view, the question that still remains
unanswered is this: Why then has it been mentioned in such an ambiguous way that
even most of the Muslim scholars were not able to understand it?

Response:
This point of view, in fact, claims to explain each and every verse of the
Qur'an. The principle on which it is based is that the Qur'an was revealed
to the prophet to enable him to accomplish his prophetic mission. A part of the
mission was to deliver a message which was meant for all times to come. However,
another part of the message of the Qur'an was meant for the prophet's
immediate mission of establishing the practical dominance of Islamic teachings
in the Arabian Peninsula. There are many verses of the Qur'an about which most
Muslims agree that they were era-specific.[47]
There are some others about which there is ambivalence, not in the text itself,
but in the understanding of the scholars who have not been able to place them
properly. Those who are presenting a more aggressive, militant understanding
because of their claim that all verses ofQur'an
have practical validity for all times, would find it difficult to explain some
of them.[48]

If the view presented in the paper is accepted, it has to be conceded
that God wanted non-Muslims at the time of the prophet to be either crushed or
subjugated. This understanding too is not going to sink too well with the
understanding of justice and benevolence a humane religion is expected to
display.

Response:
The conclusion drawn about the non-Muslims of the prophet's era is true. Islam
would not beapologetic about it.
The reason is that God wanted that the evidence of religious truth be
established at a reasonable level of clarity and then people be allowed to
decide freely about their religion. If messengers (Rasul) were not given
the opportunity to dominate, the message of truth wouldn't have disseminated.
Moreover, the Qur'an doesn't want believers to have sympathy for the
criminals who received God's message most clearly and yet rejected it. No
system would tolerate the activities of a criminal who despite being informed
time and again that what he is doing is unacceptable still continues to indulge
in acts of high treason against the state. If an individual was convinced that a
letter was sent to him by his Creator and he tore it apart out of arrogance, no
punishment should be considered too harsh for him. On the other hand, if Muslims
were unfair in their understanding or implementation of Islam, they too will not
be able to escape accountability. The Qur'an says: "It is neither dependent
on your wishes (O Muslims) nor the wishes of the people of the Book; whosoever
does ill shall be punished for it, and shall find no protector and friend apart
from God."[49]

Who is going to take the responsibility for the suffering that has
already taken place because of the incorrect understanding of some Muslims?

Response:
God Almighty has made this temporary life an occasion for trial. The real life
is the one to come that would be eternal. If one is looking for complete justice
in this world, one is living in a fool's paradise. This world is unfair and
would remain so as long as human freedom is allowed to be influenced by desire,
prejudice, hatred, and other weaknesses. The only reason why a Muslim is looking
for justice here is because that it is going to bring him success in the
hereafter. Those who suffer in this world innocently will be compensated
adequately in the hereafter. Suffering in this world is a part of the package of
trial. We can only lessen suffering in this world, and all good Muslims ought to
aim at that objective. However, the way this life has been designed, injustice
and suffering cannot be eliminated. That's why, according to Qur'an, it
makes no sense to not believe in the life hereafter. God would make sure that
all injustices of the worldly life are fully taken care of in the next life. In
fact, one cannot possibly do greater harm to the cause of human welfare than to
deprive humanity of a confident hope of a lasting life after death, based on
principles of justice.

Conclusion:

The correct Islamic approach towards non-Muslims is to assume that all of them have,
as yet, not been properly convinced about the authenticity of the Divine origins
of the teachings of Islam. It is for the Muslims to help the non-Muslims to
appreciate the truthfulness of the Islamic teachings. That would require not
only intelligent preaching on their part but, even more importantly, a behaviour
of respect for the fellow human beings, irrespective of their faith. In case if
they have to criticize other religious views, they should criticize only ideas
and those too intelligently.

The absence of the desired behaviour on the part of some Muslims has been an
important reason for their failure to present Islam as a message that is worthy
of being taken seriously by non-Muslims. It will only be taken seriously by them
if Muslims are peaceful, tolerant, and respectful towards other faiths while
they continue their peaceful struggle to convince non-Muslims politely.

[1]
The paper doesn't claim that the approach mentioned in it is the only
Islamic way of dealing with the question of religious diversity. However,
the author strongly feels that despite the fact that many Muslims prefer
other approaches which have been criticized in this paper, the one presented
here is the most strongly supported by Qur'an . The author acknowledges
the profound influence of the ideas of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi Sahib and Mawlana
Wahiduddin Khan in formulating the thoughts expressed in this paper.

[2]See Badham, Paul; The Case of Religious Pluralism: An Inaugural
Lecture given at St. David's University College, Lampeter; 1991; p. 5

[3]
I have shown it later in this paper that this view is not consistent with
the correct understanding of the Qur'an. See p.5-12

[4]
I do admit that there could be examples of Exclusivists who would be
genuinely interested in non-believers with a view to converting them to
their faith. But that concern for others would give way to either lack of
concern or hatred as soon as it is realized that the person is unlikely to
embrace the Exclusivist's faith.

[14]
See Gospel of John, op.cit. The claim of some Christian scholars that this
understanding is only metaphorical in nature doesn't alter the fact that
the text mentions it clearly and that a large number of Christians believe
it literally.

[15]
Qur'an says: "Say:God is
unique. God is immanently indispensable. He has begotten no one, and of none
is He begotten. There is no one comparable with Him." (Qur'an: 112: 1-4)

"...
Most directives of Islam that depict hostility and antagonism towards
non-Muslims are directed towards a specific category of non-Muslims, which
may exist today but cannot be humanly pinpointed. In reality, this category
of non-Muslims were punished by the Almighty in the era of Muhammad (sws)
and his Companions (rta) .... The hostility and antagonism which the Qur'an
depicts against these non-Muslims are actually the various
manifestations of the punishment meted out to them. In religious parlance,
such non-Muslims are called the Kuffar (singular: Kafir) or
Disbelievers. In other words, directives which depict hostility and
antagonism against non-Muslims are not related to the non-Muslims of today
since the Kuffar among them cannot be ascertained. (Saleem,
Shahzad; "Islam and Non-Muslims: A New Perspective"; Monthly
'Renaissance'; Lahore: Dar-ul-Ishraq; March, 2002; p8)

[18]
While all Rasul were Nabi, all Nabi were not Rasul
i.e. the latter is a subset of the former.

[21]
Parentheses have been used in the translations to serve two purposes: i)
Explanatory words are added to help the reader in appreciating the full
sense of a statement which, because of the peculiar propensity of Qur'anic
text to be brief, is not stated in words but is clearly implied in the
context; and ii) Phrases are inserted to clarify the meanings or
connotations of an expression. For this latter purpose, the explanatory
words are preceded by i.e.

[33]
In the light of a number of Qur'anic verses which clarify that rejecting
the claim of a genuine prophet of God is an unpardonable crime, in order to
correctly understand this verse it should be assumed that the religious
people mentioned in this verse were not guilty of rejecting any genuine
prophet of God knowingly.

[34]
Qur'an clarifies that those who ascribe partners with God (i.e.
polytheists) shall not enter the paradise. It says: "Surely God will not
forgive that a partner be associated with Him; but He will forgive whatever
is short of that to whomsoever He pleases. And whoso associates partners
with God has indeed devised a very great sin." (4:48)

[36]
The understanding comes very close to the following passage of the New
Testament: "Then Peter began to speak: 'I now realize how true is that
God does not show favouritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him
and do what is right." (Acts; 10: 34-5) I would like to acknowledge
Professor Paul Badham of St. David's University, Lampeter, Wales for
guiding me to the above passage in his e-mail to me dated April 22, 2002.

[37]
The Vatican Decree does say: "Nor shall the divine providence deny the
assistance necessary for salvation to those who without any fault of theirs,
have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God." (See Badham, op.
cit., p.9) This statement of the Docree comes very close to the Islamic
approach I have proposed in this paper. However, the spirit of this approach
is somewhat compromised when clear statements are made vindicating the
positions of other faiths. Also, the positive mention of atheists in the
Decree cannot help in clarifying the true Christian position.

[48]For example, Qur'an says: "...slay the idolaters wherever you
find them..." (Qur'an; 9: 5). If this verse is to be held universally
applicable, then Muslims should get rid of all the people they consider
polytheist even today. Not many Muslim scholars would agree to that.
However, if the vital distinction between era-specific and the universally
applicable verses is not properly clarified, a literal understanding of this
and other similar verses can have extremely dangerous consequences.

“Men are the guardians of women, because God has given advantage to some people over another, and because they spend from their wealth. Consequently, pious women are obedient [to their husbands] and keep their secrets for God also keeps secrets. And as for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them [first] and [next] refuse to share their beds and [even then if they do not listen] beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Indeed, God is Exalted and Mighty.” - Al Nisa' 4:34

The above is one of the verses of the Qur’an that many Muslim scholars normally need to explain, clarify and justify in length for their Muslim and non-Muslim audience. At the face of it the verse seems to simply advise men to beat their wives if they do not obey them. It is very normal that in our era this can easily become a controversial issue.
When I was explaining this verse for a group of Muslims a while ago, a very respected lady who herself was a very devoted Muslim asked me how this verse could be best explained for others, especially for non-Muslims who were coming from a totally different background. I found this to be a very valid and relevant question and thought I should write something in response to it. This article is my attempt in answering that question.
I would like to make it clear from the outset that the aim of this article is not at all to defend or justify the verse. The only aim of this article is to explain it so that the reader understands the verse and its implications more thoroughly.
Another point to clarify at the start is that this article is focusing on the part of the verse that instructs about beating disobedient wives (underlined in translation). The earlier parts of the verse will be discussed, where related, only to explain the latter part of the verse but will not be elaborated in detail as they are not the subject of this article.
There are two extreme approaches in explaining and justifying the verse of beating wife in the Qur’an:

a. To say that this is God’s directive and therefore it does not need to be an issue to discuss. We therefore only need to obey it.
While it is a fact that for a Muslim, God’s directives in the Qur’an are to be obeyed with no hesitation, I think it is the right of us as human beings to demand explanation and clarification about any verse of the Qur’an and in fact, the Qur’an itself has advised us to think and ponder over its meanings. Avoiding such demands and questions can only result in ignorance or arrogance, both of which will ultimately be destructive to Muslims and their faith.

b. The other approach is to eliminate the question by trying to argue that the word that is traditionally translated as “beat them” in this verse really has a different meaning.
I have not found any reliable basis for the above argument. I think it is very clear from the way Arab uses the word that the verse is indeed referring to ‘beating women’ and not anything else.

After the above introduction, I would now like to proceed with the main body of this article that is explaining the verse of ‘beating women’ and its implications. In order to be as brief and as clear as possible, I am going to do this in a series of short bullet points.

Understanding the verse:
1. Before any attempt to understand the verse on beating the wife it is very important to first understand the logic behind it. In the Abrahamic religions (not just Islam) family unit is considered as a social unit that like any other social unit needs leadership and this leadership for the reasons that are described in the verse[i] is given to men. It is beyond this article to explain this further but this perspective needs to be appreciated if we want to understand the verse correctly. Verse 34:4 starts by referring to this fact and is based on this foundation.

2. Appreciating the above, we can now understand what ‘Nushuz’ in the verse means. ‘Nushuz’ is coming from the root ‘Nashz’ which means an elevated land and its derivatives are used for the meaning of ‘rising up’. The word, like most other words and like in any language, will find its exact meaning when it is interpreted within the context. In the context of the verse under discussion, and considering the last point, the word means uprising and defying authority. Nushuz here means a woman who rejects the God given authority of her husband in being her guardian.

3. What we learn from the above is that Nushuz does not mean having a different opinion. It does not mean disagreeing either. Even occasional disobedience of a wife towards her husband by itself cannot be called Nushuz. Nushuz refers to a much more serious concept, that is, rejecting the authority of the husband (as given by God). Difference of opinion, disagreeing and occasional disobedience are not the same as rejecting the authority altogether.

4. It needs to be understood that the verse has not given a religious instruction. This can easily be appreciated by those who are familiar with the style of the Qur’an and the style of the classic Arabic language. This is a very important point to understand. It is not that husbands are obliged by this verse to beat their wives if the conditions were met. It is not like if a husband decides not to beat his rebellious wife that means he is disobeying God. It is therefore not correct to say that the Qur’an has ‘instructed’ to beat wives.

5. Once the above very important point is appreciated, we can easily appreciate that the verse under question has merely addressed a family issue by giving a solution that was best suited for the socio cultural conditions of the time and the land. This is very much similar to the verse of the Qur’an in the same Sura that advises and permits men to marry up to four women to address the issue of protecting orphans’ rights (4:3)[ii].

6. In the Sura of Nisaa the verses that are addressing the issues related to the husband and the wife are to protect the structure of the family and its sanctity and (in line with this) to bring peace (Islaah) between the couples (as explicitly referred to in the verse 4:35). This means the husband is not supposed to beat his wife to fulfil his anger or to humiliate her. This not only is forbidden, but also works quite contrary to the above purpose, that is protecting the family and bringing peace.

7. Appreciating the above, the husband needs to (and in fact is obliged to) think carefully about the consequences of any reaction he might take in trying to correct his rebellious wife. He should wisely use only those measures that he knows will work. He should avoid those measures that he thinks may make the situation worse, even if these are the measures that are given in verse 4:34.[iii]

8. It needs to be appreciated that the advice of beating is only applicable if the earlier two advises did not work. This means in his attempt to correct his rebellious wife, according to the verse, the husband can only use ‘beating’ if ‘admonishment’ and ‘refusing to share bed’ does not work.

9. The best follower of the Qur’an is the Prophet (pbuh). First, we do not have any narrations that suggest that the Prophet (pbuh) ever beat his wife[iv]. Second, we have a number of narratives reporting that the Prophet (pbuh) limited beating to a hit that is not severe[v] (does not leave mark) and is not on the face. In explaining this Ibn Abbas has given example of a hit that is as light as striking with a toothbrush (that at the time of the Prophet – pbuh – was a very tiny short piece of wood, hardly capable of creating any pain)[vi]. Considering this, the beating is not to punish or to change the attitude of the wife by causing her pain. Rather, it is only a gesture of disapproval and dissatisfaction and reclaiming the right as the head of the family.

10. It needs to be appreciated that the verse is not advising about a permanent attitude by the husband. There can only be two possibilities. One is that the solution of beating wife works in which case, as the verse instructs at the end, the husband should fear God and should refrain from any further actions. The other possibility is that beating does not work, meaning, the wife continues to be totally rebellious to her husband’s authority and the husband’s beating her does not help at all. This is the case of serious difficulty between the couple and can result in their separation. In this case verse 4:35 (the verse after the verse of beating) advises that the help should be sought from relatives of the both sides. Therefore the beating that the verse is referring to is simply a one off measure. No man can use this verse to justify a regular attitude of aggression towards his wife.

11. One of the most important obligations of a Muslim is to follow the agreements. By being a resident of a country or by being allowed to enter a country, the person has entered an agreement to obey the rules of that country. If according to the regulations of the country even a slight beating of the wife (as explained in point 9) counts as domestic violence and is illegal, then the husband should respect this rule and observe it.

12. An objection that is sometimes made is that in verse 4:128 the wife is advised to settle on a compromise with her husband if she fears of the husband’s ‘Nushuz’. The objection is that why in the case of the wife having Nushuz the husband is allowed to beat her but in the case of the husband having Nushuz the wife is advised to have leniency. Justified as it might seem, the objection is based on a totally wrong assumption. The wrong assumption is that the Nushuz in verse 4:34 is of the same level as the Nushuz in verse 4:128. I mentioned in point 2 that it is the context of the verse that determines exactly what Nushuz means. In the context of verse 4:34, Nushuz means the wife rejecting the authority of her husband. This clearly is a threat for the whole family structure. In comparison, in the context of verse 4:128 and the verses before and after it, Nushuz only means the husband not treating his wife justly. No doubt this is a wrong attitude but it is nowhere as drastic as the meaning of Nushuz in verse 4:34. The two different treatments of the two Nushuz in these two verses can easily be understood by appreciating this fundamental difference between the two cases.

Conclusions:

We can easily reach a conclusion by putting together all the above twelve points as a summary of observations on the verse 4:34:

Men by nature and by their obligation to be financially responsible are the guardians of their wives and heads of the family. The wife may disagree and as it happens, can even occasionally disobey her husband. However if the wife’s disobedience to her husband means rejecting the authority that the husband has been given by the Almighty, then this will be a serious problem as it can easily break the structure and the sanctity of the family. In this case the Qur’an has given (not an instruction but an) advice that could easily fit with the socio cultural norms of the Arab society of the time. According to this advice, the husband is allowed to beat her wife in the above condition, if admonishing her and leaving her bed does not work. The Prophet (pbuh) has advised Muslims that the beating should be light and should not leave a mark. In fact the beating should not be to satisfy the anger, it is merely a gesture of disapproval and dissatisfaction. This is a one off solution that should either result in peace or should be followed by the next major step that is involving closed ones to help.

Since the whole point of this advice is to keep the family intact and to keep peace in the family, the husband should avoid this practice if he knows that it will not work or, worse, it will work contrary to the purpose. Also if the regulations of the country of residence consider even light beating to be forbidden then the husband is not allowed to use this measure.

I would like to stress again that the intention of this article was not to defend the verse of beating wife or to make it appear nice. I do not think that the verse needs any defence. The aim of this article was merely to clarify the meaning of the verse and its logic and conditions. For those who believe in the Qur’an, I hope this article brings some clarification, insights and reassurance. For those who do not believe in the Qur’an and like to criticise the verse, I hope this article prompts them to formulate their criticism based on a correct understanding of the verse.

[i]The reasons are: 1. Men normally excel in certain physical and emotional abilities that make them more suited for this function. 2. Men are supposed to have financial responsibility for their family.

[ii]This was simply a solution that could work best in the socio cultural conditions of the time and the land. The advice by no means was meant to be a universally applicable instruction, just as the advice of ‘beating women’ was not meant for that purpose. To read more about this verse please read the article Polygamyand the following question and answer: “Does polygamy degrade womanhood” (note in particular the author’s footnote at the end of the answer).

[iv]One of the well known and superseding principles of jurisprudence is known as the principle of La Zarar (no harm) Ù„Ø§ Ø¶Ø±Ø±. One of the implications of this rule is as follows: If there is a case where following a religious directive causes damages that are more significant than the sought benefit, then the religious directive needs to be relaxed in that case to avoid greater damage.

There are two views regarding what has caused the recent tragic
catastrophe that the Muslim Ummah is facing. According to one view it is
primarily America, Jews, Bush, Tony Blair etc... who are responsible for our
woes. Once we get rid of them convincingly, the Ummah would regain its
past glory. Such people are resorting to all sorts of means to criticize,
condemn, and even ridicule these enemies of the Ummah. Thus we receive
through e-mails expert political and military analyses, slogans of
protestations, jokes about Bush showing him a born idiot, his photographs along
with those of monkeys proving that both belong to the same category etc... If
the view is correct, it is probable that the conclusion these people have drawn
as to what they should do is also logical, even though some of the stuff we
receive leaves a bad taste.

The other view is that whatever has happened to us owes
itself to our sins, both individual and collective. The Almighty is punishing us
for our inept behavior and even if we are able to get rid of America, Israel,
Bush, Blair etc... the Almighty will create others to inflict His punishment
upon us. Such people are urging Muslims to mend their ways and do individual and
collective repentance (Taubah) so that His displeasure gives way to His
grace. They are therefore asking Muslims to do serious soul searching to find
out where they have gone wrong. They are asking them to become more God-fearing,
knowledgeable about Islam, disciplined, patient etc...

These
are two different views about the prevailing situation that are bound to lead to
two different remedies.

In one of the criticisms[1]
posted at 'Answering Islam', the author has pointed out a contradiction in Al-Nisaa
4: 15 -- 16 and Al-Noor 24: 2. Al-Nisaa 4: 15 -- 16 read as:

And for the harlots among your women, call four witnesses, from among your
people, against them. Thus, if they testify, then confine them to their houses
until death claims them or God ordains for them another way. And for the two,
who are guilty of lewdness from among you, punish them both [with a beating].
Then if they repent and [promise to] correct their behavior, then let them be.
Indeed God accepts repentance most; Infinitely Merciful.

Al-Noor 24: 2 reads as:

For the male and the female guilty of fornication, flog them both a hundred
stripes. Let not mercy for them overtake you in the implementation of God's
law, if you truly believe in God and the Final Day. And let the implementation
of the punishment be witnessed by a group of believers.

The author of the referred criticism, Mr. Jochen Katz writes:

... there is the contradiction whether for a female adulteress the is
punishment one hundred stripes [Sura 24:2] or confinement in the house until
death [4:15].

If 4:16 does not speak only about homosexual acts but also about adultery
of man and woman, then another contradictory element is added: If they repent
they can get off the hook without punishment? Who will not repent with the
prospect of a hundred stripes waiting for them?

Apart from the question whether the punishment should be as in 24:2 or
4:15, how come the man and woman are treated equal in 24:2, but seemingly
different in 4:15?

A thorough understanding of the two verses should sufficiently answer the
questions raised by Mr. Katz. A brief explanation of the verses follows:

Al-Nisaa 4: 15 relates to the crime of prostitution. This is
precisely the reason why only women have been mentioned;

The punishment for the crime is given as house arrest till death, so that
the woman in question is effectively hindered from spreading mischief and
lewdness in the society;

The last words of the verse -- 'until God ordains for them another way' --
clearly implies that the stipulated punishment (of house arrest) is for a
period of time, after which, when the society is prepared and organized for
it, the permanent law shall be given;

Al-Nisaa 4: 16 relates to a male and a female involved in
fornication;

Immediately succeeding the words 'until God ordains for them another way',
it was clear that the stipulated punishment was also effective for a
temporary phase, till the time that the society was prepared and organized
for the permanent punishment to be given;

The punishment stipulated in the verse is of an undefined beating, which
is in keeping with the fact that during the initial phase, the punishment
for the crime was not strictly prescribed;

The above points should also explain why the punishment in the first case
is more severe than that in the second case. The two crimes, as should be
clear, belong to two different categories. The consequence of the latter of
the two is restricted to the two individuals involved in it; while the
former, if allowed to flourish, results in the moral degeneration of the
society.

Al-Noor 24: 2 (and the verses that follow) prescribe the final and
the permanent punishment for the crime of fornication;

As far as the final and permanent punishment for prostitution is concerned,
it is not given in Al-Noor 24: 2. However, besides these verses, Al-Maaidah
5: 33 -- 34 prescribed punishments for crimes that were of the nature of
spreading disorder and anarchy in the land or of religious persecution or in any
other way effecting the well being of the society at a macro level. Explaining
the penal law of Islam, I had written in my response to a question:

It must be understood at the outset that Islam, in its injunctions
regarding the penal law, has classified crimes into two major categories:

Normal crimes; and

Extra-ordinary crimes.

Examples of the first category may include crimes against someone's
property, i.e. theft, crimes against someone's life, i.e. murder or physically
harming a person and crimes against chastity and respect, i.e. fornication and
defamation. Besides this classification, Islam has given another class of
crimes, that may appear to be of the same nature as given above, but are
committed with an absolutely different psyche.

For example, a person may quietly enter someone's premise and steal
something from there, and in another case, a few people may form a gang of
robbers and rob market places, houses and automobiles on the highway. Now, if
you would consider closely, although a crime has been committed against
property in both the cases, but the psyche of the criminals is quite different
in the two cases. The first case entails a psyche of a simple criminal while
the second case entails a psyche of a person who wants to create unrest and
disorder in the society, as a whole. Like wise, in case of murder, a person
may kill another person on provocation, in hot blood or only to "get
even" for an insult, or to settle the score of an old enmity. While on
the other hand, a person may install a bomb in a public place and thereby kill
anyone -- man, woman or child -- that comes within the range of the blast.
Now, again, even though the two acts have resulted in the same thing -- that
is loss of life -- but still the psyche in the two acts is absolutely
different. The same is the case with crimes against chastity and respect. A
man and a woman may indulge in the act of fornication or adultry, while in
another case, a man may rape a woman or a woman may open a brothel.

Crimes of the first category are basically against the person, property,
respect and morality of individuals, while crimes of the second category are
basically against the society, as a whole. The crimes relating to the second
category are called "fasaad fil-ardh" in the Qur'an.

The punishment of those, who declare a war against God and His messenger
and try to spread unrest in the land is nothing but that they be sentenced to
a painful death or to crucifixion or that their one hand and one foot of the
opposite side be amputated or that they be sent in exile. This punishment is a
disgrace for them in the life of this world, and in the hereafter, a great
punishment awaits them. Except for those who repent [and correct their
behavior] before you catch them. Be mindful that God is Forgiving, Merciful
[for the repentant].

Explaining the penal law of Islam, I had written in my referred response:

Islam, in its penal law, has proposed two different kinds of punishments
for the crimes of the two categories... the punishment for "fasaad
fil-ardh" has been mentioned in Al-Maaidah 5: 34. In this
verse the Qur'an says that such individuals should slain in a painful manner (taqteel)
or should be crucified (tasleeb) or one of their hands and one of their
feet should should be amputated or they should be sent in exile (they should
be removed from their society and thereby from the influence of bad company).
It is obvious from this verse that the court has been given the authority to
decide and implement from amongst these four punishments according to the
gravity of the crime and according to the psyche of the criminal.

In view of the above explanation, it is clear that the final and permanent
punishment of prostitution (for which a temporary punishment was stipulated in Al-Nisaa
4: 15), rape etc. was derived from the given verse. Stoning to death was, in
fact, one of the methods adopted by the Prophet (pbuh) for implementing 'taqteel'
(slaying in a painful manner).

Thus, the punishments mentioned in Al-Nisaa 4: 15 -- 16 were, in fact,
given for a temporary period, during which the newly formed society was
organized and groomed. During this time, lighter forms of punishments were
administered to the criminals[2].
However, later on, as the moral standard of the society elevated and as it
became more organized, stricter punishments were prescribed for these crimes.
The latter punishments replaced and abrogated the previous order.

[2]
At the time of wide spread moral degeneration, it is not the law but the
moral elevation that is sought by the prophets of God. It was in keeping
with this principle that when a woman guilty of adultery was brought to
Jesus (pbuh) and he was asked about her punishment, he declared that
although her punishment, according to the Law was stoning to death, yet
under the prevalent level of piety and chastity, no one had the right to
administer the severe punishment. John 8: 2 -- 11 reads as:

Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people
were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes
and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her
in the center of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman
has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses
commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say? They were saying
this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But
Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they
persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He
who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at
her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard
it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He
was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no
one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said,
"I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

The basic underlying purpose and direction of all the directives of the Islamic Shari`ah[1] is the purification and cleansing of the human mind, body and soul. It is with this basic stress in its general directives that the Shari`ah also requires man to keep in perspective the criterion of the 'good' and the 'bad'; the 'fit' and the 'unfit'; the 'clean' and the 'unclean' in his selection of what may and may not to be eaten. The Qur'an (Al-Maaidah 5: 4) says:

Ø£ÙØ­ÙÙ„Ù‘ÙŽ Ù„ÙŽÙƒÙÙ…Ù Ù±Ù„Ø·Ù‘ÙŽÙŠÙ‘ÙØ¨ÙŽÙ€Ù°ØªÙ‌Û™

All things suitable [for eating] have been permitted to you.

Thus, the stipulation of the criterion of the 'suitable' and the 'unsuitable' is the basic guidance of the Shari`ah regarding the lawful and the prohibited in edibles[2]. The Shari`ah has generally considered this basic guidance to be sufficient for man. In fact, this is the reason why the Shari`ah has not felt the need to give an exhaustive list of what is suitable for eating and what is not, as man's natural inclinations and instincts generally have correctly guided him in making the decision. History bears witness to the fact that man has generally not felt attracted toward serving the flesh of wild and carnivorous animals, birds of prey and certain insects[3] on his table. He has generally considered his horses, mules and dogs to be of domestic utility for him, rather than to serve his hunger. He has also remained absolutely clear about the 'unsuitability' of his own defecations and those of other living things. The same has also generally been the case of all such things that intoxicate him and affect his consciousness and his faculty of reasoning and understanding. As stated earlier, it is for this reason that the Shari`ah, after giving this basic guidance regarding the lawful and the prohibited in edibles, has not felt the need to give an exhaustive list of what man should and should not eat. The prohibition of canines, birds of prey[4], such animals that due to their habit of eating filth develop a kind of stench in them[5] and mules[6] etc. that has been reported in some narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) are, in fact, an explanation of this natural inclination and instinct of man. The prohibition of liquor and intoxicants also falls in the same category. At the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, when people repeatedly inquired about liquor, pointing out to some of its advantages, the Qur'an adamantly declared that the sin involved in drinking liquor far exceeds any of its advantages[7].Then, later on, in Surah Al-Maaidah, the Qur'an emphatically declared that drinking liquor, due to its potentially negative consequences is an ungodly and a satanic deed, which, under all circumstances, therefore, must be avoided. The Qur'an (Al-Maaidah 5: 90) says:

O you, who believe, liquor, gambling, animals slaughtered at shrines and food distributed by gambling through arrows are all unclean, satanic deeds, therefore refrain from them, so that you may be successful [in the test of this life].

All these directives of the Qur'an and those mentioned in narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) are, basically, a reference to and a reminder of these natural instincts and inclinations of man. There, indeed, have been scattered instances where a particular society has ignored these natural instincts and inclinations and has deviated from them. Nevertheless, on the whole man has, generally, quite strictly conformed to these instincts and inclinations, in choosing between what should and should not be eaten. It is for this reason that the Shari`ah has not gone into the, already conformed with, details of what a man may and may not eat, and has, therefore, restricted its guidance to the few instances in which man could have confused right from wrong, had he taken a decision in the light, merely, of his natural instincts and inclinations. For example, being an omnivorous animal, should pig be grouped with the eatable grazing animals or the uneatable carnivorous animals? All animals are killed before being eaten. What if an animal dies a natural death? Should it now be grouped with the 'edibles' or the 'inedibles'? Should blood - being a part of an animal's body - be grouped with the edible parts of its body - like meat, fat, bones etc. - or inedible parts - like the residual defecation in its stomach? Does it make any difference that the animal is slaughtered without pronouncing God's name upon it or even if it is slaughtered for any other deity besides God? Man, it is obvious, could not have answered these questions, with any degree of certainty, without God's guidance, in this regard. Thus, for the guidance of man, God has given clear answers regarding these four items (i.e. flesh of swine, flesh of dead animals, flowing blood and animals slaughtered for other deities) and has grouped each of them with the inedible group of things. In fact, a close look at the directives of the Shari`ah shows that it has restricted its directives to these four items, about which man was not in a position to take a decision on his own, regarding whether these items should be grouped with the eatable things or the uneatable things. The Qur'an, in Al-An`aam 6: 145, says:

Say [O prophet]: 'In what has been revealed to me, I find nothing prohibited from the things that a person eats, except carrion, flowing blood, the flesh of swine - because these are all unclean things - or any flesh that has been sacrilegiously consecrated for anything other than God'. Nevertheless, whoever is driven by necessity, intending neither to sin nor to transgress, will find your Lord very Forgiving, Eternal in mercy.

Only carrion, blood, flesh of swine and that which is consecrated for anything other than God is prohibited for you. Even, in these things, whoever is driven by necessity, intending neither sin nor transgression, there shall be no sin upon him. Indeed God is extremely Forgiving, Eternal in mercy.

Exactly the same directive has once again been repeated in Al-Nahl 16: 115, with hardly any alteration in words. Notice the limiting style in all these instances. In the first case, the words "In what has been revealed to me, I find nothing prohibited from the things that a person eats, except..."[8], while in the second verse, the opening word "only..."[9] has clearly restricted the prohibitions prescribed by God, in the case of edibles, to the mentioned four items only.

The above explanation completely sums up the basic directives of the Shari`ah with regard to edibles. To avoid any confusion, there are, however, some explanations, clarifications and extensions of these basic directives, also given in the Qur'an. These clarifications and extensions are explained in the following paragraphs:

Extensions/Limitations of the Prohibition of Carrion

a) Animals that Die in an Accident or due to an Injury

As is clear from the above explanation, carrion - flesh of dead animals - was clearly prohibited by the Qur'an. Nevertheless, there could still have remained some doubt regarding whether this prohibition applies only to animals that die a natural death or would it also extend to animals that die because of an accident or an injury caused by other animals or by a fall etc. The Qur'an, in Al-Maaidah 5: 3 completely clarified the situation and removed all doubts that could have existed in this regard. It declared:

Carrion, blood, flesh of swine and that which is consecrated for anything other than God has been made unlawful for you. And [this includes animals] which die due to strangulation, due to an injury, due to a fall and due to being gored by [the horn of] another animal and those, which have been [partly] eaten by a wild animal - [all these are included in carrion,] except those [which are found alive and which] you properly slaughter.

Thus, according to the Qur'an, a dead animal, whatever may have been the cause of its death, must not be eaten.

b)Parts Cut-off from Living Animals

The prohibition regarding carrion will also apply to any part cut-off from a living animal, and, therefore, the cut-off part shall not be considered as eatable. At the time of Hijrah[10], the people of Medinah used to cut off the humps of their camels and the fat in the tails of their rams for eating. When this practice was brought to the notice of the Prophet (pbuh), he did not approve of the practice. The Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:

Whatever is cut-off from a living animal is [to be considered as] carrion. (Abu Dawood, Kitaab al-Sayd)

Thus, Al-Zamakhshariy, the acknowledged linguist of the Arabic language, writes:

The word [for carrion] has been used [in the Qur'an] in its generally held connotation [rather than a literal connotation]. Notice, when someone says: "He ate 'Maetah' [i.e. carrion]", this does not bring to mind someone eating a dead fish or a dead locust, just as when one says: 'He drank blood', this would not bring to mind someone eating liver or the spleen. Thus, it is precisely on the basis of the generally held connotations of words that Muslim jurists have said that if a person has vowed to avoid meat, but later on eats fish, his vow shall not be rendered broken, even though [in a literal sense] he has, in fact, eaten meat. (Al-Kashaaf, Vol. 1, Pg. 215)

It is precisely on this basis that the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:

Two animals even when dead and two kinds of blood are allowed for you to eat. As for the two animals that you can eat if they are dead, they are fish and locusts. As for the two bloods, they are liver and the spleen. (Ibn Maajah, Kitaab al-At`imah)

This is precisely what the words: "Its [i.e. the sea's] dead are allowable for eating" ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) imply. The "dead of the sea" in this narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) is used for such fish of the sea, which were generally not construed by the word "Maetah" in the Arabic language, even though from a purely literal or a legal perspective, the word would apply to all dead animals.

d)"Tazkiyyah" - An Essential Condition

The words: "except those [among these animals, which] you properly slaughter", at the end of the referred part of the cited verse of Al-Maaidah 5: 3 clearly evidence the fact that it is only the method of 'proper slaughtering' of all such animals which need to be slaughtered for eating that renders such animals fit for eating. This proper slaughtering of an animal in the Arabic language is called "Tazkiyyah".

In the Arabic language, the term Tazkiyyah of an animal connotes draining of the blood from the animal through the infliction of an injury with a sharp-edged instrument, in such a way that the animal dies primarily due to loss of blood. In this manner, the body of the animal and its meat is completely relieved of the "uncleanness" of the blood. The two methods generally followed for attaining Tazkiyyah of an animal are known as "Zibh" or "Nah'r". The former is generally used for the "Tazkiyyah" ofanimals like goats, sheep, cows, hens etc., while the latter is generally used in the case of animals like camels. In "Zibh", an incision is made across the throat of the animal in such a way that its trachea (windpipe) and esophagus or the trachea and the jugular veins are severed. In "Nah'r", on the other hand, the trachea of the animal is pierced with a sharp-pointed spear-like instrument in such a way that it results in a gushing discharge of the blood and, in some time, renders the animal lifeless.

However, if due to any reason, it is not possible to adopt any of these two methods of attaining "Tazkiyyah", then it would suffice to use any other method of inflicting such an injury to the animal, which drains it of its blood. Once, when one of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) asked him regarding what method of "Tazkiyyah" should one employ in a situation where he does not have a knife, the Prophet (pbuh) said:

Inflict an injury, which drains it of its blood, by whatever instrument you may and pronounce God's name upon it. (Abu Dawood, Kitaab al-Dhuhaayaa)

Animals killed by arrows, gunshots or any other method should also be considered in the light of the above explanation. Moreover, if a trained hunting animal - like trained hounds or hunting birds - while retrieving the prey, injures and kills it, it would still be considered allowed for eating and shall not be considered carrion[11]. The Qur'an has clarified the issue in Al-Maaidah 5: 4. The Qur'an says:

They ask you regarding what they are allowed to eat. Say: 'All suitable things are allowed for you and also that which your hunting animals, whom you have taught of the knowledge that God gave you, [hunt for you]. Thus, eat of that which they have held back for you [without eating from it] and pronounce God's name on this. Fear God [and obey His commandments, for] indeed God is swift in reckoning.

As is clear from the style and the context of the verse - especially the preceding verse in which the Qur'an had already prohibited all animals that die due to being attacked and [partly] eaten by a wild animal (except if they are found alive and slaughtered in the proper way) - that this verse is a response to the questions asked regarding the position of such a hunted animal, which is killed or which dies due to an injury or a wound that it may have suffered while being retrieved by a properly trained hunting animal. The Qur'an, in response to this question, has declared that when the prey is killed or fatally injured by a properly trained hunting animal, it may be eaten. This actually implies that, according to the Qur'an, such a killing or injuring by a properly trained hunting animal is a substitute for other methods of attaining "Tazkiyyah" of the prey. However, in such a case, the Qur'an has qualified the permission with the condition that the trained hunting animal must not have eaten from the prey and should have held it back for its master. The words: "which they have held back for you" clearly point toward the stated condition. The Prophet (pbuh) has clarified this condition, which was inherent in the referred verse as follows:

When you let your dog loose on a prey, pronounce God's name at that time. If you find that the prey is still alive, then pronounce God's name upon it, while slaughtering it, while if you find that the dog has killed it, but has not eaten any part of it, then you can eat it, because this is what it has held back for you. However, if you find that the dog has partly eaten it, then you should not eat it, for this is what it has held back for itself. And if you find other dogs with your dog, and you find that the dogs have killed the prey, even though they have not eaten from it, you should not eat it, for you cannot be sure which of the dogs may have killed it.

Limitations on the Prohibition of Blood

Blood, as is clear from all the cited verses of the Qur'an is also included in the list of prohibitions of the Shari`ah. The Qur'an, in one of the verses cited above (Al-An`aam 6: 145), has also clarified that it is only the flowing blood, which has been prohibited. The words Ø¯ÙŽÙ…Ù‹Û¬Ø§ Ù…Ù‘ÙŽØ³Û¡ÙÙÙˆØ­Ù‹Ø§ (i.e. flowing or flown blood) clearly point to this fact. The phrase 'flowing/flown blood' is used in its generally implied and construed connotation. According to this connotation, liver and spleen are not included in blood, even though they may, in fact, be composed mainly of blood. Furthermore, any static blood that may remain in the veins of the animal would also not be included in the stated prohibition.

Extensions of 'Consecrations for Other Deities'

The last among the four prohibitions mentioned in the Qur'an are those animals, which have been consecrated for anything besides God. It is quite clear from the cited verse of Al-An`aam[12] that the first three prohibitions of the Shari`ah - i.e. flesh of dead animals or carrion, flesh of swine and blood - are prohibited for their inherent physical uncleanness. However, in contrast to the first three prohibitions, the fourth prohibition is not because of any inherent uncleanness in the animal, but because of the disobedience and the sinfulness of the person sacrificing the animal. The Qur'an has referred to such consecrations of animals for other deities as being a 'clear disobedience' or 'sacrilegious act' because of the obvious polytheistic spirit involved in such wrongful consecrations. Such an action is, obviously, an evidence of the uncleanness of the beliefs of the person sacrificing the animal. Thus, in other words, this prohibition, in contrast to the first three prohibitions of the Qur'an, entails a spiritual rather than a physical uncleanness, which is, in fact, the case of the former three prohibitions. It is also quite predictable that any other spiritual uncleanness of a related kind in an animal or its meat should also render the animal equally prohibited as does its consecration for other, imaginary, deities. Thus, as an extension of the prohibition of an animal that has been consecrated for other deities, the Qur'an has mentioned a few things, which entail the same kind of spiritual uncleanness.

And also [prohibited are] those animals slaughtered at shrines and also that [food,] which is distributed by [gambling through] arrows, for these entail extreme disobedience.

As a predictable custom of polytheistic cultures, the Arabs had a number of shrines and altars for their deities where they used to slaughter animals, which according to their beliefs, won them the pleasures and the goodwill of these false deities. Due to the same spiritual uncleanness in such sacrifices as is found in animals consecrated for deities other than the One God, the Qur'an has grouped the two together and has placed them both in the list of prohibitions. The reference to the prohibition of animals slaughtered at shrines, after already having mentioned the prohibition of those which are slaughtered in the names of deities other than the One God is a clear evidence of the fact that the mere placement of the slaughter ritual at a shrine or an altar, renders such animals unfit for eating[13].

The latter part of the verse[14] refers to a common cultural tradition of the Arabs in which they would gamble on a slaughtered camel and distribute its meat through raffle using arrows. The Qur'an had already condemned and prohibited all gains from gambling and wager, and because the meat distributed through raffling was clearly a gain from wager, it was rendered unfit for eating. Furthermore, because of the spiritual, rather than the physical nature of uncleanness in such meat, it is placed with the meat of animals consecrated for deities other than God and those slaughtered at shrines and altars.

b)Slaughtering Without the Pronouncement of God's Name

If an animal is not slaughtered in God's name, even though it is not consecrated for other deities, it would still be grouped with the meat of animals consecrated for other deities and those slaughtered at shrines and altars. The Qur'an has termed refusal to take God's name on animals as "a grave disobedience" and "a sacrilegious act"[15] and has thus grouped it with consecrating animals for deities other than God and with sacrificing animals at shrines and altars.

And do not eat of that upon [the slaughter of] which God's name has not been pronounced, for that, indeed, is a grave disobedience. And these devils inspire their partners to debate with you, and if you [O people,] were to follow them, you would then, indeed, be polytheists.

Pronouncing God's name, while sacrificing animals, implies the acknowledgement of God's blessings, submission to His directives and being grateful and thankful toward Him. Obviously, no one other than God deserves to be included in this declaration; and a refusal to pronounce His name is clearly ingratitude and thanklessness toward Him. This pronouncement further implies the fact that life - even that of an animal - is sacred and sanctified. Our pronouncement of God's name at the time of slaughter implies that it is only with God's permission and His approval that we are depriving a living thing of its life. Seen from this perspective, refusal to take God's name at the time of slaughter or adding names of false deities with that of God at this time is not only a sign of disrespect toward the life that is being taken but also toward the sole source of all life - the One God. Finally, this pronouncement is also a sign of consecration of all life for the Sole Being that deserves this consecration. Slaughter, as is well known, has always been a part of worship rituals and a show of extreme reverence and salutations. Thus, the pronouncement of God's name - and only His name - is a declaration to the effect that all salutations, all reverence and all worship is owed only to Him, Who is the sole source of all the blessings that we have been bestowed with.

If the pronouncement of God's name is such an essential element in the slaughter ritual that its absence renders the animal prohibited in the Shari`ah, then, one might ask, what would be the position of an animal on the slaughter of which the pronouncement of God's name has unintentionally been missed. The referred verse of Al-An`aam, if closely examined, provides a clear answer to this question, as well. Those who know the Arabic language can easily appreciate that due to the word "Lum" the phrase Ù…ÙÙ…Ù‘ÙŽØ§ Ù„ÙŽÙ…Û¡ ÙŠÙØ°Û¡ÙƒÙŽØ±Ù Ù±Ø³Û¡Ù…Ù Ù±Ù„Ù„Ù‘ÙŽÙ‡Ù Ø¹ÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙŠÛ¡Ù‡Ù (mimma Lum yuzkarismallah `alaiyhe)[16] is no longer merely a simple negative clause. On the contrary, the word "Lum" has added a certain kind of stress in the negative aspect of this clause. Thus, now the phrase: Ù…ÙÙ…Ù‘ÙŽØ§ Ù„ÙŽÙ…Û¡ ÙŠÙØ°Û¡ÙƒÙŽØ±Ù Ù±Ø³Û¡Ù…Ù Ù±Ù„Ù„Ù‘ÙŽÙ‡Ù Ø¹ÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙŠÛ¡Ù‡Ù (mimma Lum yuzkarismallah `alaiyhe) would apply only to those animals upon the slaughter of which God's name has intentionally not been pronounced or such pronouncement has been refused. In other words, the stated prohibition would not apply to a case where the pronouncement of God's name has, unintentionally, been missed.

Moreover, another question that may arise in one's mind relates to a situation of doubt. What should one do, if one is not certain whether God's name has been pronounced on an animal or not? In such a situation, if the slaughterer is a Muslim or ascribes to any such other creed which considers the pronouncement of God's name at the time of slaughter to be essential - as was the case of the Ahl e Kitaab (the Jews and the Christians) in the Arabian Peninsula, at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an and is still, generally, the case with the Jews and some Christians - then the meat would be eaten on the confidence that such a person would have pronounced God's name on his slaughter. Muslim, in his compilation of narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), reports:

According to Ayesha (ra) people from amongst the Bedouins would bring us meat. We used to be unsure whether they had pronounced God's name on such meat or not. The Prophet (pbuh), [when asked about such meat] said: 'Pronounce God's name upon the meat [as a Muslim should on every food] and eat it'.

On the contrary, if the slaughterer ascribes to a creed, which does not consider the pronouncement of God's name at the time of slaughtering an animal to be essential, then, obviously, it would no longer be a matter of doubt regarding whether or not God's name was pronounced on the animal. In such a case, a Muslim, because of the clear directives of the Shari`ah, should consider the meat prohibited for eating[17].

c)Slaughter of the Polytheists and non-adherents to Creeds Based on the Teachings of a Prophet

To be grouped with the allowable animals, the animal should be slaughtered by a person, who believes in One God, does not ascribe false partners to Him and is an adherent and follower of any one of the known creeds that are based on the teachings of a true prophet of God. Thus, besides the animals slaughtered by the Muslims, the Qur'an has restricted the permission of edible meat to that of the animals slaughtered by the Ahl e Kitaab (i.e. the people of the Book - the Jews and the Christians). The Qur'an, in Al-Maaidah 5: 5, declares:

Now, all suitable things have been rendered fit for you to eat and also the food of the people of the book is fit for you to eat and your food is fit for them.

It is quite clear that the factors, which make the Ahl e Kitaab distinct from other creeds and similar to the Muslims - due to which only their food, contrary to the other's, has been rendered fit for the Muslims - are: 1) belief in God; 2) strict restraint from knowingly ascribing partners to God; and 3) ascribing to a creed that is based on the teachings of an established prophet of God[18]. Thus, it logically follows that the absence of any of those factors, the presence of which in the Ahl e Kitaab qualifies their food as allowable for Muslims, shall render the food prohibited for Muslims. In other words, an animal slaughtered by a person, who:

does not believe in God; or

ascribes partners to the One God; or

is not an adherent to a creed that is based on the teachings of an established prophet of God

shall be grouped with those animals that entail a grave spiritual uncleanness and is, thus, prohibited for eating.

An Exception Regarding the Prohibitions

The aforementioned list of prohibitions is to be strictly followed under all circumstances. The only exception is where a person is forced by necessity into benefiting from any of the stated prohibitions. The Qur'an has, generally, referred to this exception in the following words (Al-Baqarah 2: 173):

Nevertheless, whoever [eats of these things], due to being driven by necessity, intending neither sin nor transgression, there shall be no sin upon him. Indeed God is extremely Forgiving, Eternal in mercy.

The same words have been repeated in Al-Nahl 16: 115. However, in Al-Maaidah 5: 3, the Qur'an has altered the words by adding a slight clarification of the phrase 'driven by necessity'. The related part of Al-Maaidah 5: 3 reads as:

Then, whoever, being forced by hunger [eats of these things], without the inclination toward sin, then indeed God is very forgiving, eternal in mercy.

As is clear from the style and the words of this exception to the rules regarding the prohibitions, it refers to a situation where a person is forced to save his life by eating something which is clearly prohibited by the Shari`ah. However, even under such circumstances where a person is forced to take advantage of any of the express prohibitions of the Shari`ah, he should do so with dislike and abhorrence, rather than with the inclination of his heart. This is what the words 'intending neither sin nor transgression' and 'without the inclination toward sin' imply in the two cited verses, respectively. The permission to take advantage of the express prohibitions of the Shari`ah, in the presence of these words, should be purely with the spirit to save one's life, which obviously implies that it should be restricted to the quantity necessary to save one's life and it should, under no circumstances, exceed this limit.

The Prohibition Applies only to Eating

As the related verses of the Qur'an clearly imply, the prohibition of all the stated items is only with reference to their consumption as edibles. All these things can be used for purposes other than consumption as edibles. This is also reported in one of the sayings ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). The narrative has been reported as:

The slave-girl of Maimoonah (ra) was given a goat in charity. The goat died. The Prophet (pbuh) passed by the goat and said: 'Why did you not skin it, so that you may have tanned its skin and benefited from it?' They replied: 'It is carrion'. The Prophet (pbuh) said: 'It is only prohibited for eating.'

The Law at a Glance

The following section summarizes the directives of the Shari`ah relating to the lawful and the prohibited in edibles:

The basic guiding principle in considering an item prohibited/lawful for eating is that all things suitable for eating are permitted, while those, which are not suitable for eating should be refrained from. Man, through his natural instincts and inclinations, has generally taken the correct decision and is therefore not in need for an exhaustive list of items that he may or may not use as edible. Canines, birds of prey, such animals that due to their habit of eating filth develop a kind of stench in them, mules, horses, liquor and other intoxicants etc. belong to the category of things that man has generally not considered suitable for eating;

As a guidance regarding the things, which man may have mistaken as eatable, the Shari`ah has prohibited:

Carrion or the flesh of dead animals;

Blood;

Flesh of swine; and

Anything consecrated for other deities.

Some explanations given by the Shari`ah regarding the prohibition of carrion include:

All animals that die in an accident or due to an injury shall be grouped with carrion;

Parts cut off from a living animal shall be grouped with carrion;

Dead fish and locusts shall not be grouped with carrion and can, therefore, be eaten;

'Tazkiyyah' or the proper bleeding of an animal is an essential requirement for it to be considered allowable. Any animal that is killed without the fulfillment of the condition of 'Tazkiyyah' shall be grouped with carrion.

The animals that are retrieved by trained hounds, hunting birds or any other species trained for the purpose are allowed for eating, even if the animal is injured or killed by the retrieving hound or bird etc.

The prohibition of blood does not apply to:

Any static residual blood in the veins of a slaughtered animal; and

The liver and the spleen.

Some details given by the Shari`ah, regarding the prohibition of animals consecrated for other deities, include:

Animals slaughtered at shrines and altars are also prohibited;

Animals, on the slaughter of which God's name is intentionally not pronounced are also prohibited; and

Animals slaughtered by polytheists and non-adherents to any creed, which is based on the teachings of an established prophet of God are also prohibited;

If a person is driven by hunger, he may eat of any of these prohibited items to save his life. However, in so doing, the person should neither be inclined toward crossing the limits set by God, nor toward taking more than what is necessary to save his life;

All the listed items are prohibited only for use as edibles. Their parts may be brought under any other use, except as edibles.

The Encyclopedia Judaica has explained this aspect of the Mosaic Dietary Laws in the following words:

The Bible classifies those animals permitted for consumption as tahor ("clean"), and those prohibited as tame ("unclean"). The distinction is traced to the wording of Noah's instructions. "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean, two (and two), each with his mate" (Gen. 7:2). The criterion seems to have been the animal's sacrificial suitability, rather than pagan taboos. (Judaism Practice, Dietary Laws, Animals, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

Then, further elaborating the application of the same criterion on birds, the Encyclopedia writes:

Leviticus 11:13-19 lists 20 "unclean" birds, and Deuteronomy 14:12-18 enumerates 21. From these two lists, the rabbis compiled a total of 24 "unclean" birds (Hul. 63a-b). All birds of prey are forbidden, such as the vulture, the osprey, the kite, the falcon, the raven, and the hawk. The Bible does not list "clean" birds. (Judaism Practice, Dietary Laws, Birds, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

Adam Clarke, while explaining Genesis 7: 2 writes:

So we find the distinction between clean and unclean animals existed long before the Mosaic law. This distinction seems to have been originally designed to mark those animals which were proper for sacrifice and food, from those that were not. See Leviticus 11. (Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, CD, Complete Christian Collection, Packard Technologies, 1999)

2-Carrion

The Bible says:

You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. (Deuteronomy 14: 21)

Then again, in Leviticus, the Bible says:

He shall not eat an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, becoming unclean by it; I am the LORD. (Leviticus 22: 8)

The 'Jamieson, Faussett & Brown commentary on the Old Testament', while explaining Leviticus 22: 8, says:

The feelings of nature revolt against such food. It might have been left to the discretion of the Hebrews, who it may be supposed (like the people of all civilized nations) would have abstained from the use of it without any positive interdict. But an express precept was necessary to show them that whatever died naturally or from disease, was prohibited to them by the operation of that law which forbade them the use of any meat with its blood. (Jamieson, Faussett & Brown's commentary on the Old Testament, CD version, Master Christian Library - Version 8, Ages Corporation)

"Nevelah[19]" or "Nebelah", in the Jewish law implies animals that have died for reasons other than the ritual slaughter. The Encyclopedia Judaica writes:

NEVELAH descriptive noun for any animal, bird, or creature which has died as a result of any process other than valid ritual slaughter (shehitah).

It is clear from the cited part of the Encyclopedia that according to the Jewish law, all animals that die without the process of 'valid ritual slaughtering' are 'nevelah' and therefore prohibited for eating. However, fish and locusts can be eaten even without the 'valid ritual slaughter'. The Talmud says:

Cattle are [in a forbidden state until] rendered permitted by slaughtering... Fish, on the other hand, are [always in a permitted state, for they are] permitted by the mere taking up... (Talmud, Mas. Chullin 67b, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

For the purpose of elucidation, this Rabbinic ruling must be cited: carrion, whether of wild animals, clean or unclean cattle, imparts uncleanness by contact and carrying. The carrion of a clean bird has but the one uncleanness ? that when there is an olive's bulk thereof in the eater's gullet (v. Toh. I, 1). The carrion of an unclean bird, of fish, clean and unclean, and of locusts, have no uncleanness at all. (Footnote on Mishna - Mas. Uktzin Chapter 3, Mishna 3, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

Regarding fish, the Encyclopedia Judaica writes:

In Jewish tradition only fish that have scales and fins are permitted for consumption. They need not be slaughtered ritually (shehitah) and their blood is not prohibited. (Fish and Fishing, Fish in the Halakhah, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

Parts cut off from living animals are also considered prohibited in the Jewish law. The Talmud reads:

"Our Rabbis taught: 'But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat' (Genesis IX, 4), this prohibits flesh cut from the living animal. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: It also prohibits blood drawn from a living animal." (Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 59a, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

Furthermore, like "Tazkiyyah" in the Islamic Shari`ah, "Koshering" - i.e. removing all possible blood from the slaughtered animal - is an essential element for considering the animal allowable for eating. The Judaica writes:

The prohibition against the consumption of blood (Lev. 7:26-27; 17:10-14) is the basis for the process of koshering meat. The purpose of the process is to draw out and drain the meat of non-veinal blood, before it is cooked. The blood can be removed either by salting the meat, or by roasting it over an open flame. (Judaism Practice, Dietary Laws, Koshering, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

3-Blood

The Bible says:

... you shall eat no kind of blood, whether it is of bird or of beast, in any of your dwellings. (Leviticus 7: 26)

Then again:

However you may slaughter animals and eat their meat in all your gates, to your heart's desire, according to the blessing of the Lord, your God which he has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as they do of the gazelle and the deer. Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth like water. (Deuteronomy 12: 15 - 16)

According to the Encyclopedia Judaica:

In the Bible there is an absolute prohibition on the consumption of blood. The blood of an animal must be drained before the flesh may be eaten (Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-14; Deut. 12:15-16, 20-24). (Judaism Practice, Blood, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

Consumption of blood, as is clear from the Encyclopedia, is considered a punishable crime, in Judaism. The Encyclopedia writes:

The prohibition of blood enjoined in the Bible is defined by the Talmud as referring to the blood of cattle, beasts, and fowl, and prescribes the punishment of karet[21] for the consumption of the minimum amount of the volume of an olive (Ker. 5:1). The blood for which one is so liable is "the blood with which the soul emerges," i.e., the lifeblood, but not the blood which oozes out subsequently, or blood in the meat. Blood of all other creatures, fish, locusts, and human blood, is permitted according to the rabbinical interpretations of biblical law, although according to one source (Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu Rabbah, 15) human blood is equally forbidden by the Bible. (Judaism Practice, Blood, Blood in Halakhah, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

It is, in fact, the severity of the crime involved in eating blood that a complex process of completely draining the blood from an animal is adopted to ensure that no sin is involved in eating of the slaughtered animal. Explaining this process of Koshering (i.e. draining the blood from the animal), the Encyclopedia Judaica writes:

The prohibition against the consumption of blood (Lev. 7:26-27; 17:10-14) is the basis for the process of koshering meat. The purpose of the process is to draw out and drain the meat of non-veinal blood, before it is cooked. The blood can be removed either by salting the meat, or by roasting it over an open flame.

The salting process is begun by fully immersing the meat and bones in clean, cold water (in a vessel used exclusively for this purpose), for 30 minutes. The purpose of this operation is to open the pores, and remove any blood on the surface, thus enabling the salt to draw the blood out of the softened fibers of the meat. The meat is then laid out on a special grooved or perforated board, which is slanted, in order to allow the blood to flow down. It is then sprinkled with salt. The salt should be of medium texture; neither fine (which melts away), nor coarse (which falls off). Poultry should be opened and must be salted inside and out. The meat is then left to stand, for one hour, after which it is washed two or three times in cold water. In an emergency, i.e., when the meat is intended for a sick person or when time is short on the eve of Sabbath, the periods of immersion and salting may be reduced to 15 and 30 minutes respectively.

The salting process cannot be used if more than 72 hours have elapsed since the time of the shehitah. Such meat can only be koshered by roasting over an open flame, a process which is considered to be more effective in removing the blood than salting. It is, however, customary to salt the meat a little, even if it is to be roasted over an open flame.

Before koshering, the vein which runs along the front groove of the neck must be removed or cut in several places. The heart, too, is cut in several places and the tip is cut off so that the blood may drain. The gizzard is cut open and cleaned before koshering. Salting is not considered effective enough to kosher the liver, which is full of blood. It is therefore, sprinkled with salt, cut across or pierced several times, and placed on or under an open flame, until it changes color, or a crust forms. (Judaism Practice, Dietary Laws, Koshering, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

4-Flesh of Swine

The Bible says:

... and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. (Leviticus 11: 7)

Adam Clarke, while explaining Leviticus 11: 7 writes:

And the swine [chazir], one of the most gluttonous, libidinous, and filthy quadrupeds in the universe; and, because of these qualities, sacred to the Venus of the Greeks and Romans, and the Friga of our Saxon ancestors; and perhaps on these accounts forbidden, as well as on account of its flesh being strong and difficult to digest, affording a very gross kind of aliment, apt to produce cutaneous, scorbutic, and scrofulous disorders, especially in hot climates. (Notes on Leviticus 11: 7, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Power BibleCD, Ver. 2.5, Online Bible Inc.)

According to John Wesley's Notes on the Old and the New Testaments:

the swine - It is a filthy, foul-feeding animal, and it lacks one of the natural provisions for purifying the system, "it cheweth not the cud"; in hot climates indulgence in swine's flesh is particularly liable to produce leprosy, scurvy, and various cutaneous eruptions. It was therefore strictly avoided by the Israelites. Its prohibition was further necessary to prevent their adopting many of the grossest idolatries practised by neighboring nations. (Notes on Leviticus 11: 7, John Wesley's notes on the Old and the New Testaments, Power BibleCD, Ver. 2.5, Online Bible Inc.)

5-Consecrations for Other Deities

The Bible says:

Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the LORD alone, shall be devoted to destruction. (Exodus 22: 20)

It says in the Talmud:

Mishnah. That which is slaughtered by a gentile[22] is Nebelah and defiles by carrying. (Talmud Mas. Chullin 13a, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

While explaining the cited part of the Mishnah, the Talmud says:

"And defiles by carrying". Is not this obvious? Since it is nebelah [it follows that] it defiles by carrying! Raba answered: This is the interpretation. This animal defiles by carrying, but there is another [similar] case where the animal even defiles [men and utensils that are] in the same tent. Which is that? It is the case of an animal slaughtered as a sacrifice to idols. This then is in accordance with the view held by R. Judah b. Bathyra. (Talmud Mas. Chullin 13b, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

It might be of interest to note that the prohibition of blood, carrion and animals consecrated to idols is also mentioned in the New Testament. Acts 15: 20 says:

but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

1Corinthians 10: 28 reads as:

But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake.

Thus, the prohibition of blood, carrion and animals consecrated for idols was also maintained and honored by all the Christian creeds until the 8th Century. According to John Wesley's Notes on the Old and the New Testaments:

Blood - The eating of which was never permitted the children of God from the beginning of the world.Nothing can be clearer than this.For, 1. From Adam to Noah no man ate flesh at all; consequently no man then ate blood. 2. When God allowed Noah and his posterity to eat flesh, he absolutely forbade them to eat blood; and accordingly this, with the other six precepts of Noah, was delivered down from Noah to Moses. 3. God renewed this prohibition by Moses, which was not repealed from the time of Moses till Christ came. 4. Neither after his coming did any presume to repeal this decree of the Holy Ghost, till it seemed good to the bishop of Rome so to do, about the middle of the eighth century. 5. From that time those Churches which acknowledged his authority held the eating of blood to be an indifferent thing.But, 6. In all those Churches which never did acknowledge the bishop of Rome's authority, it never was allowed to eat blood; nor is it allowed at this day.This is the plain fact; let men reason as plausibly as they please on one side or the other. (Notes on Acts 15: 29, John Wesley's notes on the Old and the New Testaments, Power BibleCD, Ver. 2.5, Online Bible Inc.)

According to the People's New Testament Commentary:

That they abstain from the pollutions of idols. Four items are mentioned, which are all embraced in the apostolic letter as things forbidden. They were four common customs of the Gentile world, and matters on which there should be a clear understanding. The first does not mean only to refrain from worshiping idols, or eating meat offered in idol sacrifice, but from all the pollutions of the system of idolatry. Licentiousness and drunkenness received a sanction from religion. See Lecky's European Morals, chapter V., and Conybeare and Howson's Paul, chapter IV.

From fornication. Chastity was the exception instead of the rule among Gentiles at this period.

From things strangled. Because in strangling the blood was retained in the flesh.

From blood. The use of blood was prohibited by the Mosaic law (Le 17:14; De 12:16,23), and for wise reasons this prohibition was extended to Gentiles. The Roman epicures were wont to drown fowls in wine and then use the flesh. It was a common thing to drink wine mingled with blood. The only way to strike at these savage practices was to prohibit its use.

As far as the pronouncement of God's name before slaughtering the animal is concerned, there is sufficient evidence to believe that it is a regular practice of the Jewish community, even though the exact words of the particular benediction offered at the time of slaughter could not be found. As a principle, benefiting from all good things in life must be preceded by a blessing. The Encyclopedia of Judaism says:

Pronouncing this benediction [reference is to Grace Before Meals] accords with the rabbinic view that "it is forbidden and sacrilegious for anyone to enjoy [the good things] of this world without a blessing (Ber. 35a), and that failure to recite a benediction over food is tantamount to "defrauding the Almighty" (Tosef. Ber. 4.1) (The Encyclopedia of Judaism, Grace Before Meals, Davka Corporation)

The shohet [i.e. the person performing the shehitah] pronounces a special blessing before slaughtering, and one blessing suffices for the slaughter of many animals at one time. (The Encyclopedia of Judaism, Shehitah, Davka Corporation)

The above information, combined with the fact that all Jewish blessings and benedictions, as a rule, must entail God's name[23], should suffice as evidence to the fact that one of the elements in the ritual slaughter to be valid, according to the Jewish Law, is the pronouncement of God's name before the actual act of slaughtering.

6-The Stated Prohibitions may be Used for Purposes Other than Eating

There seems to be some difference of opinion among the Talmudic scholars regarding deriving benefits, other than eating, from nevelah[24] and other prohibited items. The Talmud says:

On the view of R. Meir who maintained,[to] a ger[25] and a heathen alike, both selling and giving are permitted, it is well: since a verse is required to permit benefit from a nebelah, it follows that all other things forbidden in the Torah are forbidden in respect of both eating and [general] benefit. But according to R. Judah, who maintained, it comes from [the purpose of teaching that] the words are as they are written, whence does he know that all [other] things forbidden in the Torah are forbidden in respect of benefit? He deduces it from, [ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field;] ye shall cast it to the dogs: 'it' you may cast to dogs, but you may not cast to dogs all [other] things forbidden in the Torah. And R. Meir? ? [He interprets:] 'it' you may cast to dogs, but you may not cast to dogs hullin killed in the Temple Court. And the other? ? [Benefit from] hullin killed in the Temple Court is not [forbidden] by Scriptural law. (Talmud Mas. Pesachim 21b - 22a, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

This difference of opinion is further elaboratedin the following part of the Talmud:

Shall we say that it is dependent on Tannaim[26]? [And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts.] may be used for all service [: but ye shall in no wise eat of it]. Why is 'for all service' stated? For I might think, for the service of the Most High let it be permitted, but for secular service let it be forbidden; therefore it is stated, 'for all service': this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba said: For I might think, for secular service let it be clean, [but] for service of the Most High let it be unclean; therefore it is stated, 'for all service'. Now R. Jose the Galilean [holds] that in respect of uncleanness and cleanness a verse is not required, a verse being required only in respect of what is forbidden and what is permitted. While R. Akiba [maintains]: [in respect of] what is forbidden and what is permitted no verse is required, a verse being required only in respect of uncleanness and cleanness. Surely then they differ in this, [viz..]: R. Jose the Galilean holds, ye shall not eat' connotes both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit, and when the verse comes to permit nebelah, it comes in respect of benefit. While R. Akiba holds: it connotes a prohibition of eating, [but] does not connote a prohibition of benefit, and for what [purpose] does the verse come? In respect of uncleanness and cleanness! No: all hold that 'ye shall not eat' connotes both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit, but here they differ in this: R. Jose the Galilean holds, when nebelah was permitted, it [alone] was permitted, [whereas] its fat [heleb] and its sinew were not permitted, and [therefore] for what purpose is the verse required? It is in respect of permission for use. But R. Akiba holds: when nebelah was permitted, its fat [heleb] and its sinew too were permitted; hence for what purpose is the verse necessary? It is in respect of uncleanness and cleanness. (Talmud Mas. Pesachim 22a - 23b, Soncino Talmud, version II, CD version, Davka Corporation and Judaica Press Inc.)

However, the following verse of the Bible seems to clearly permit such usage:

Also the fat of an animal which dies and the fat of an animal torn by beasts may be put to any other use, but you must certainly not eat it. (Leviticus 7: 24)

The Christian Creed

The position of the Christian creed, with reference to the Mosaic Law was no different from the Jews themselves. Jesus (pbuh) in his legendary 'Sermon on the Mount' declares:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5: 17 - 19)

This express confirmation of the Mosaic Law and the commandments entailed in the Books of the Prophets, combined with the fact that Jesus (pbuh) did not, at any time during his ministry, expressly direct his disciples to disregard any of the teachings entailed in these books, is a sufficient evidence for us to believe that by default the Christians were, in fact, supposed to adhere to all the prohibitions mentioned in the Mosaic Law. It is precisely for this reason that Jesus (pbuh) did not bring a new Shari`ah regarding edibles.

Thus, whatever has been explained in the foregoing section regarding the Jewish Dietary Laws, applies to the Christian as well[27].

Regarding the Additional Restrictions of the Judaic Law

Besides the aforementioned similarities in the Islamic Shari`ah and the Mosaic Law regarding what may or may not be used for eating, there were certain additional restrictions imposed by the earlier Law. It is beyond the scope of this article to enumerate all these additional restrictions regarding edibles, yet to get an idea about these restrictions, one may only look at the law relating to the act of slaughter (Shehitah).

The Judaica writes:

Specific regulations govern the method by which an animal must be slaughtered before it is permitted. So complex and minute are the regulations, that the slaughter must be carried out by a carefully trained and licensed shohet. It is his duty both to slaughter the animal, and to carry out an examination (bedikah). Shoulda defect be found in some of the organs, such as the brain, the windpipe, the esophagus, the heart, the lungs, or the intestines, the animal is terefah, and forbidden for consumption. Defects are normally classified under eight categories (Hul. 43a): nekuvah, perforated organ walls; pesukah, split pipes; netulah, missing limbs; haserah, missing or defective organs; keru'ah, torn walls or membrane covers or organs; derusah, a poisonous substance introduced into the body, when mauled by a wild animal; nefulah, shattering by a fall; shevurah, broken or fractured bones. It is assumed in the Talmud that any of these defects would lead to the death of the animal within one year (Hul. 3:1; see below). Only if the animal has none of these injuries, is it pronounced kasher.[28]

Then again, with the prohibition of nevelah - flesh of a dead animal - animals that have suffered an injury which can cause death - within a specific time (generally, one year) - even though the animal has not yet died, renders the animal unfit for eating. The Judaica writes:

It is forbidden to eat either a nevelah (an animal that dies a natural death, or that has been killed by any method other than shehitah; Deut. 14:21), and a terefah (an animal that has been torn by a wild beast; Ex. 22:30). The term terefah is also applied to an animal suffering from an injury which may lead within a specific time to its death (see above). Such an animal is absolutely prohibited for consumption. The Talmud (Hul. Chap. 3) describes over 70 such injuries and lesions (see also Sh. Ar., YD 29-60; Maim. Yad, Shehitah, 10:9), which Maimonides describes as "the limit" and which, he says "must not be increased even though it should be found by scientific investigation that other injuries are dangerous to the life of the animal" (Maim. Yad, ibid., 10:12), or diminished "even if it should appear by scientific investigation that some are not fatal; one must go only by what the sages have enumerated" (Maim. Yad, ibid., 10:13).

All these restrictions were removed in the final Shari`ah. It was, in fact, the removal of such restrictions, which the Qur'an (Al-Aa`raaf 7: 157) has referred to in the following words:

[The true believers are they] who are following the messenger - the Unlettered Prophet - whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. He enjoins righteousness upon them and forbids them from evil. He makes suitable things lawful to them and prohibits all that is unsuitable. He relieves them of their burdens and of the shackles that had weighed upon them. Thus, those who have believed in him and have honored him and have aided him and have followed the light sent down with him, are the ones that shall indeed triumph.

[1] The divine law entailed in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh).

[2] At another instance while reminding His favor on the Ahl e Kitaab, which was inherent in the advent of the last Prophet (pbuh), God declares:

He [i.e. the Prophet (pbuh)] allows them the suitable and prohibits for them the unsuitable and removes the burdens and the shackles that have remained upon them [in the past]. (Al-Aa`raaf: 7: 157)

[11] However, if the prey dies not because of any injury inflicted by the hound, but due merely to fear or due to any other reason, it would then be considered carrion and should, therefore, not be eaten. Likewise, if the prey is still alive when retrieved, it would then, obviously, have to be slaughtered in the prescribed manner.

[12] 6: 145, Say [O prophet]: 'In what has been revealed to me, I find nothing prohibited from the things that a person eats, except carrion, flowing blood, the flesh of swine - because these are all unclean things - or any flesh that has been sacrilegiously consecrated for anything other than God. Nevertheless, whoever is driven by necessity, intending neither to sin nor to transgress, will find your Lord very Forgiving, Eternal in mercy'.

[13] Had the prohibition in such cases also been restricted to those animals, which are slaughtered in the name of deities other than God, there was, obviously, no need to mention these separately, after mentioning the prohibition of animals sacrificed in the name of other deities.

[15] In the same way, as it had previously termed the act of consecrating animals for other deities, performing the slaughter ritual at shrines and altars and of gambling on an animal's meat.

[16] "... [any part] of that upon [the slaughter of] which God's name has not been pronounced".

[17] Some people are of the view that even if it is known, with certainty, that God's name has not been pronounced on the animal, a Muslim may eat of it after pronouncing God's name upon its meat. The cited verse of Al-An`aam does not support this view. The verse clearly directs the Muslims to refrain from eating any part of an animal upon which God's name has not been mentioned. The words of the verse clearly imply that God's name should be pronounced at the time of the slaughter of the animal. If such is not the case and if God's name has, intentionally, not been pronounced at the time of the slaughter, then the verse strictly prohibits a Muslim from eating any part of such an animal. No one, who knows the Arabic language can take the verse as directing the Muslims that if God's name has not been pronounced at the time of slaughter, they should, then, pronounce it, before eating its meat.

[18] As shall be shown later in this article, this particular quality of the Ahl e Kitaab - i.e. their ascription to a creed, which is based on the teachings of an established prophet of God - also creates remarkable similarities in the directives regarding what should and should not be considered fit for eating. This seems to be one of the basic reasons in allowing the food of the Ahl e Kitaab.

[20]The oldest authoritative postbiblical collection and codification of Jewish oral laws, systematically compiled by numerous scholars over a period of about two centuries. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Mishna)

[21]The halakhah explains karet as premature death (Sifra, Emor, 14:4), and a baraita (MK 28a; TJ, Bik. 2:1, 64b) more explicitly as: "death at the age of 50," but some amoraim hold that it refers to "death between the ages of 50 and 60." (Judaism Practice, Karet, Encyclopedia Judaica CD, version 1, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.)

[22] This, obviously, implies that animals slaughtered by idolators are considered prohibited for eating as well.

Of the different blessing patterns that have survived, one short form opens with the "Blessed are You, O Lord" wording, another short form incorporates it is its conclusion, while a third and longer form uses it at both the beginning and the end. In accordance with a rule laid down by the sages (Ber. 12a, 40b), no statutory benediction may exclude the mention of God's name (the Tetragrammaton YHVH pronounced "Adonai") and of His kingship. (The Encyclopedia of Judaism, Benedictions, Davka Corporation)

[27] However, one may ask that even if the Christians were supposed to follow the Mosaic Laws, the fact remains that they had actually given up adherence to these laws from a very early period; under these circumstances, why has the Qur'an not criticized the Christians for their lack of adherence to the Mosaic Laws, if it was wrong to do so.

The 'Nasaara' (i.e. the Nazarenes), the Christian sect in the Arabian Peninsula had not given up adherence to the Mosaic Laws. Had that been the case, the Qur'an most certainly would have criticized them for it. The Nazarenes were a Syrian Judeo-Christian sect. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Although they [the Nazarenes] accepted the divinity of Christ and his supernatural birth, the Nazarenes also maintained strict observance of Jewish laws and customs, a practice that had been dropped by the majority of Jewish Christians. They used a version of the Gospel in Aramaic called the Gospel According to the Hebrews, or the Gospel of the Nazarenes."

There is also some evidence to suggest that the Nazarene creed also ascribed to the belief of the divinity of Mary (Hadhrat Maryam) - a belief criticized by the Qur'an, not ascribed to by the Pauline Christians.The following is a note on the Gospel of the Hebrews posted on one of the internet sites giving information about the canonical and apocryphal books in the Christian theology (http://www.comdac.com/~trowbridge/gosheb.htm):

c. 70-150 C.E.

It is both odd and unfortunate that no copies of any of the so-called "Judeo-Christian" gospels have survived antiquity, though the texts, kept by early Christians who maintained deep-seated Jewish beliefs, were often quoted by Christian writers throughout the first five centuries. These short citations are our only windows through which we might study the traditions of the communities that used them.

The Gospel of the Hebrews is the most often quoted of the Judeo-Christian gospels, though it must be noted that at least two other texts (Ebionites and Nazoreans) were referred to by the same title, and we can only make educated guesses as to which gospel each fragment was derived from. At least eight early writers had either referenced or cited from Hebrews, each offering their own interpretations and assessment of validity. From these we know the date of composition is no later than mid-second century, possibly much earlier. It was said to have been written in Hebrew, though much of its theology parallels Egyptian tradition.

The gospel shows no direct dependence upon the canonical gospels, though it shares a verse with the Gospel of Thomas (GosThom 2). Among the most unique traditions is the depiction of Mary, like the Johannine logos, as divine - in fact, that she was the incarnation of Michael, who was the personification of the Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus first appears to his brother James following the resurrection. Since James the Just was traditionally held to have founded the church at Jerusalem, it is no surprise that the Hebrew gospel elevates his authority by making him the first to witness the risen Christ.

Reference to the Nazarene Judeo-Christian sect in the writings of the earlier Christians is generally in a tone of great disgust and hatred. As a representative of these writings, we present below an excerpt of one of St. Augustine's letters. He writes:

In our own day there exists a sect among the Jews throughout all the synagogues of the East, which is called the sect of the Minei, and is even now condemned by the Pharisees. The adherents to this sect are known commonly as Nazarenes; they believe in Christ the Son of God, 'born of, the Virgin Mary; and they say that He who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again, is the same as the one in whom we believe. But while they desire to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other. (Early Church Fathers, The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers - Series One, Volume 1 - The Confessions and Letters of Augustine, Letter 75, (AD 404), Complete Christian Collection, Packard Technologies, 1999)

[28]Any defect found even in the knife with which the animal has been slaughtered, renders the animal unfit for eating.

Believers,
fear God and waive what remains due to you on account of Riba (Al-Baqarah
2: 278)

The Qur'an emphatically and
unequivocally prohibits Muslims from taking Riba.
The prohibition of Riba, in view
of the related directives of the Qur'an, has remained undisputed throughout
Muslim history. However, after the general practical dominance of the
capitalistic approach in the world economy, a number of questions, which
previously did not have much significance, have not only become pertinent but
also need precise answers in the successful designing of any economic model
based on the directives of Islam.

In this brief article, we shall
consider some of the important questions that are generally raised in this
respect. The questions that shall be considered are:

What is Riba? What is the
criterion on which we can term a particular transaction to be based on the
concept of Riba and thus
prohibited?

Does the prohibition of Riba
apply only to transactions based on compounded interest or does it also
include transactions based on simple interest?

Does the prohibition of Riba
apply to interest charged on commercial loans as well or is it restricted to
interest charged on personal, non-business loans only?

Why is Riba prohibited by
the Qur'an?

Does the prohibition of Riba
also hinder any inflationary adjustments in loans?

Does the prohibition of Riba
also affect the concept of rent, as there apparently seems to be no
significant difference in Riba
and rent? Is there any difference between Riba
and rent?

Does Islam allow a 'buy back on mark-up' arrangement?

Is payment of Riba also prohibited in the Islamic Shari`ah?

In case of the abolition of Riba
from a Muslim economy, will the Muslims be liable to honor their past
financial commitments, which may be based on Riba?

In the following sections, each of
these issues shall be considered briefly.

The Implication of the Word
'Riba'

The first and probably the most
significant question that is raised in this connection relates to the meaning
and the implication of the word Riba.
Incidentally, some time back, when the Supreme Court of Pakistan asked for
assistance from Muslim scholars and thinkers in taking a decision about the
prohibition or allowance of contemporary commercial interest, it also asked the
same question. The question asked by the honorable court was worded as follows:

The Holy Qur'an has prohibited Riba.
What is meant by this term? What is its true definition and connotation in the
light of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah
of the Prophet (PBUH)?

It should be clarified at the outset
that the word Riba is not a term
specific to the Qur'an. On the contrary, the word has been used in the Qur'an in
its simple literal meaning. This is a very important fact and has its
implications in determining the meaning of the word Riba.

Had the word been used as a term in
the Qur'an, it would have been necessary that the meaning be determined on the
basis only of its usage in the Qur'an. On the other hand, if Riba
is a common Arabic word, and is used in the Qur'an in its common literal meaning
and connotation, then the determination process would not depend solely on the
Qur'an but it would then actually follow the same course as we adopt in
determining the meaning and connotation of any given word of any given language.
Thus, we shall have to base our findings primarily on the authentic dictionaries
and other such reliable sources of the Arabic language.

The Arabic verb: Raba, Yarbu has
generally been explained in most of the Arabic dictionaries as:

to increase and to
grow [to augment].

The noun, Riba
or Al-Riba, generally used in the
Qur'an, has been defined by the most authentic and well known Arabic dictionary "Aqrab
al-Mawarid" as:

[It is the same thing
as the transaction of] al-`eenah
... and increase

It is quite clear from the above
statement that as a noun, the word Riba
or Al-Riba is used in two
meanings: 1- increase and 2- something called "al-eenah".
"Aqrab al-Mawarid" itself under
the word
has defined
or the 'Transaction of al-`eenah'
as:

That a man asks another for a
loan, but the lender is not interested in extending that loan as he shall not
be able to get any extra amount on that loan [because that is prohibited]. So
he says: I sell you this cloth for twelve dirhams [on credit] for a
fixed period of time. While it's actual price was ten dirhams. Thus he
gains two dirhams for that fixed period of time.

The meaning and connotation of the
word "Riba" or "Al-Riba"
have remained unchanged over time. The meaning of this word as given in some
modern-day Arabic dictionaries is as follows:

According to "Al-Raayed":

Riba
means: 1- the extra [i.e. the additional amount] or the increase; 2- gain on a
loan.

According to "Laroos":

Riba
means: a) the extra [i.e. the additional amount]: the gain or the profit that
a gainer gets on his loaned amount; b) (in financial and economic language)
the amount that a borrower pays over and above the amount that he had borrowed
following specified conditions [regarding rate and time].

The same kind of explanation has
also been given in "Mo`jam al-Waseet".

In the light of the above
explanation, we can say that the word "Riba"
is used in the Arabic language in two connotations: 1) any increase on an
amount; and 2) a gain on a loan (or investment), at a predetermined rate, which
the lender (or investor) receives from the borrower (or the business in which he
invests) for allowing the borrower to use his financial assets for a time period
(on the basis of the meaning given in "Aqrab
al-Mawarid", "Laroos"
and "Mo`jam al-Waseet").

Now, the obvious question that comes
to mind is: In which of the two meanings has the Qur'an used the word "Riba".
A close look at the verses in which the word "Riba"
has been used by the Qur'an provides us with adequate basis to say that it is
actually in the second of the two meanings given above that the Qur'an has used
this word. Some of the reasons that clearly guide us in this matter are:

Had the Qur'an used the word Riba
in the first meaning, it would also have applied to that "increase" which is
a result of all kinds of trading and business activities. But it is obvious
from the words of the Qur'an that such "increase" has not been included in
the implications of the word "Riba",
as is evidenced from the words: "They say: Trading is but like Riba"
(Al-Baqarah 2: 275) and: "Allah
has allowed trading and has forbidden Riba"
(Al-Baqarah 2: 275). In both
these sentences, it is clear that the "increase" which is the result of a
trading or a business activity is not included in the word "Riba".

Then again the Qur'an says: "... then you shall get your principal amounts
back. Neither should you wrong nor should you be wronged." (Al-Baqarah
2: 279). This verse removes all doubts that might have existed in one's mind
regarding the fact that the Riba
referred to in these verses is what has been given above in the second
meaning.

Then again, the Qur'an says: "If he [that is the debtor] is in some
difficulty [and is therefore not in a position to return the principal
amount immediately] grant him time till it becomes easier for him [to return
the principal amount]" (Al-Baqarah
2: 280).

It should be quite clear from the
details given above that the word "Riba"
is used in the Qur'an in the same meaning in which we generally use the word "interest"
(as in 'interest on loans') in the English language and the word "sood",
in the Urdu language. Thus, the word "Riba"
is actually used for: "a gain on a loan or an investment, at a predetermined
rate, which the lender demands from the borrower for allowing the borrower to
use his financial assets for a given period of time".

Does the Qur'an only Prohibit
Compounded Interest?

One of the questions regarding the
prohibition of Riba, as directed
by the Qur'an, is whether the prohibition mentioned in the Qur'an is for all
kinds of Riba (whether simple or
compounded) or does it pertain only to compounded Riba. This question has generally been asked because of an
opinion expressed by some Muslims, who hold that the Qur'an has only prohibited
compounded Riba. Although the
majority of the Muslim scholars do not hold this opinion to be correct, however,
because the opinion is presented on the basis of the Qur'an, it, therefore,
deserves our attention.

The mentioned opinion is presented
on the basis of Aal Imraan 3: 130.
The verse reads as:

Believers do not
devour Riba, increasing it
manifolds.

It is held, on the basis of this
verse, that the Qur'an has admonished the believers against taking Riba
only when it is 'increased manifolds' - in other words, when it is compounded.

The Qur'an, however, does not
support this opinion. The Qur'an, in more than one verse, has prohibited taking Riba,
without the qualification of 'increasing it manifolds', or compounding. For
instance, in Al-Baqarah 2: 275,
the Qur'an says:

Those who devour Riba
shall rise up before God like men whom Satan has demented by his touch.

Then again, in the same verse, the
Qur'an, while referring to an objection raised by the disbelievers says:

And God has allowed
trading but prohibited Riba.

In Al-Baqarah
2: 278, the Qur'an says:

Believers, fear God
and waive what remains due to you on account of Riba.

Then, once again in Al-Room
30: 39, the Qur'an says:

And whatever you give of Riba
[based loans] so that it increases [by circulating] in other people's wealth,
it does not increase in the sight of Allah.

It is quite apparent that the
prohibition mentioned or referred to in the cited verses is absolute and not
qualified with 'increasing it manifolds' or, as interpreted by some Muslim
scholars as compounded.

It should be interesting to note
that the opinion that Aal Imraan
3: 130 prohibits only compounded Riba,
is based on an incorrect understanding of the referred verse. The verse has been
interpreted to imply that a Muslim must not take Riba,
if it is 'increased manifolds', while there is no harm in taking Riba,
if it is not increased manifolds. In my opinion, this is not the correct
interpretation of the verse. What the verse truly implies - keeping in view the
other cited verses, which mention the absolute prohibition of Riba,
whether compounded or at a simple rate - is that 'Muslims have been directed to
refrain from taking Riba, the
right thing for them, therefore, is to avoid taking even a penny on account of Riba,
rather than devour it increasing it manifolds'. The verse, in its magnificent
literary style, implicitly stresses on the abhorrence and detestability of the
Shylock mentality. In such a style, 'increasing it manifolds' is not a condition
under which 'Riba'
is prohibited, but is only to magnify the detestability of the act. This
literary style of Aal Imraan 3:
130 is the same as is used in Al-Baqarah
2: 41. The Qur'an says:

Do not trade my
revelations at a paltry price...

In this verse, the Qur'an has
admonished the Banu Israel against
ignoring God's revelations for worldly gains. The implication of this verse,
obviously, is that no worldly gain is great enough to qualify as the right price
for turning one's back on God's revelations. The verse should, clearly, not be
taken to imply that one may ignore God's revelations only when one is offered a
higher price to do so. This literary style is one in which the abhorrence and
detestability of an impious act is highlighted. Similarly, in Aal
Imraan 3: 130 the implication is not to allow Riba
when charged at a simple rate but to highlight the abhorrence and detestability
of the usurer's mentality.

Another closely related question
that is sometimes posed about the prohibition of Riba
is that whether the charged rate has any effect on the prohibition or otherwise
of Riba. This question, like the
previous one, is also based on the contention that in Aal
Imraan 3: 130, the Qur'an has prohibited Riba,
when it is increased manifolds. Thus, according to this understanding, when Riba
is charged at a nominal or a competitive rate, it is not prohibited in Islam.

Nevertheless, keeping the above
explanation of Aal Imraan 3: 130
and also the other cited verses in which the Qur'an has mentioned the absolute
prohibition of Riba, in
perspective, we may safely derive that Riba,
whether charged at a simple rate or at a compound rate or whether charged at an
exorbitant rate or at a nominal or competitive rate, is prohibited by the Qur'an.

Does the Prohibition of Riba
Apply Only to Consumption Loans?

The third question with respect to
the prohibition of Riba is that
whether the Qur'an has prohibited to charge Riba
on loans taken for consumption purposes only or does the prohibition also apply
to Riba charged on commercial or
business loans as well.

This question is the based on the
contention of some Muslim scholars, who hold that during the times of the
revelation of the Qur'an, there was no concept of commercial loans. Loans were
generally taken for meeting personal consumption - non-business and
non-commercial - requirements. Thus, when the Qur'an prohibited Riba,
this prohibition could only have been with reference to the Riba
that was being charged in the immediate environment of the revelation of the Qur'an.
Hence, the prohibition of Riba,
mentioned in the Qur'an refer only to Riba
charged on consumption non-productive loans. If a loan is taken for commercial
or productive purposes, there is no element of exploitation in asking for an
increment on such a loan and, therefore, such an increment should not be
considered Riba.

The first thing that should be
clarified is that to include or exclude a given transaction from the scope of Riba
is not within our jurisdiction. All that we have to ascertain is the
implication, meaning and connotation of the word Riba
in the Arabic language. Once the implication and the meaning has been
satisfactorily ascertained, we shall then have to apply the Qur'anic prohibition
to all such transactions which come within the scope of the implication, meaning
and connotation of the word Riba.
Thus, it is the responsibility of those scholars who hold that the prohibition
of Riba applies only to increments
charged on consumption loans to provide linguistic basis to prove that the word Riba,
in the Arabic language, was used for increments on loans taken for consumption
purposes only. We have, on the contrary, established in one of the previous
sections that Riba, in the
classical Arabic language, was used for any increment on a loan (or an
investment) at a pre-determined rate. The purpose for which the loan was taken -
on which this increment was charged - does not effect the implication of the
word "Riba". In other words, Riba,
as we have seen, is any increment on a loan (or an investment) at a
pre-determined rate, irrespective of whether the loan is taken for consumption
purposes or for commercial purposes.

Moreover, the contention that during
the times of the revelation of the Qur'an loans were granted or taken for
consumption - non-business - uses only, is not supported by the Qur'an. The Qur'an,
in Al-Room 39: 30 has referred to
the motives of the people who used to give loans on Riba
in such words that clearly point-out the fact that people, during the times of
the revelation of the Qur'an, used to give loans for commercial - productive -
uses as well. The Qur'an says:

And whatever you give of Riba
[based loans] so that it increases [by circulating] in other people's wealth,
it does not increase in the sight of Allah.

The words "so
that it increases in other people's wealth" could not be said about
loans granted to poor people for consumption purposes. It is obvious from the
referred words that in the Arab society, in which the Qur'an was revealed, loans
were generally granted and taken for commercial and business usage and not for
personal non-commercial usage only.

Why does the Qur'an Prohibit
Riba?

An analysis of the positioning of
the directives related to the prohibition of Riba
in the Qur'an shows that it has primarily mentioned the prohibition of Riba
in the particular context of promoting and stimulating the Muslims on Infaaq
fi Sabeel Allah - i.e.
charity, helping others and spending in the cause of Islam[1].
For instance, in Surah Al-Baqarah,
the Qur'an has directed the Muslims to spend for the needs of others as well as
for the cause of Islam (261 - 274). After this directive, the Qur'an has
mentioned those who in their greed of earning Riba
hold back from spending their money for the general good of the society and that
of Allah's Deen[2]
(275 - 281). The contrast of the spirit inculcated by Riba
with that which is required for succeeding in the life hereafter has been
specifically made in verse 276, where the Qur'an says:

God obliterates usury and
increases charity [in blessing]. Indeed God does not like the ungrateful
usurpers.

The same contrast has also been made
in Aal Imraan 3: 130 - 134
(especially with reference to the needs of Allah's deen,
with particular reference to those who held back from spending in Allah's way at
the time of the battle of Uhud)
and Al-Room 30: 38 - 39
(especially with reference to the needs of a person's relatives and the
destitute). The Qur'an, in Al-Room
30: 39, says:

And whatever you give of Riba
[based loans] so that it increases [by circulating] in other people's wealth,
it does not increase in the sight of Allah. While whatever you spend in
charity, seeking the pleasure of God - these are the ones for whom it shall
truly be increased.

Thus, from the positioning of the
directive regarding the prohibition of Riba,
it may easily be derived that the Qur'an has mentioned it as a deterrent against
the spirit of Infaaq fi Sabeel Allah.
Riba, it may be derived from the
above explanation, is considered by the Qur'an to develop apathy toward the
needs of other individuals, the society in general, and Allah's deen.
In other words, according to the Qur'an, Riba
has the potential of inculcating in a person the spirit of indifference towards
the needs of others. This indifference has extremely adverse effects on the
individual as well as the collective morality of a people. It replaces the
spirit of mutual help with commercialism and that of sacrifice with apathy and
self-interest.

Furthermore, the Qur'an has also
mentioned that taking Riba is Zulm
- i.e. injustice[3].
There is absolutely no justification, in the eyes of the Qur'an, in asking for a
pre-determined increment on a
loan, when the loan itself is to be returned in full.

The aspect of Zulm, in charging Riba,
is generally not greatly contested in cases where a loan is taken for a
personal, non-commercial usage. However, for some people it is difficult to
comprehend any element of Zulm in
charging Riba on a loan taken for
a business or a commercial usage. Although, for a Muslim, it should suffice that
because the Qur'an has unequivocally declared that taking Riba
is unjust, therefore, it should be considered and categorized as such. Yet, for
the satisfaction of the questioning mind, it seems reasonable to point out the
major element of injustice in charging Riba,
even in cases where a loan is taken for a business venture.

Riba,
it should be kept in mind, is a pre-determined increase on a loan (or an
investment). It is primarily the element of pre-determination of the increase
that makes it Riba - and as a
result prohibited in Islam. It is the same element of pre-determination of the
increase that makes it a Zulm or
an injustice. A loan is generally granted to a venture (whether commercial or
non-commercial) for two reasons. Firstly, a loan may be advanced with the spirit
of supporting a particular venture. This, generally, is a philanthropic
activity, where a person lends an amount of money for the purpose of supporting
another person or a group and is only interested in getting his money back at
the stipulated time. Secondly, a loan may be advanced with the spirit of
investment. In this case, the prime interest of the lender is to earn a return
by advancing his idle wealth. It is primarily in these types of loans that the
element of Riba is considered to
be morally justified. The moral justification generally propounded for charging Riba
in such loans is that if the borrower is deriving a monetary advantage from
capital, which is provided by someone else, it would only be fair if the real
owner of the capital is also given a reasonable share in the monetary advantage
thus derived. Makes sense!!! However, it should be understood that the
pre-determination or the pre-fixation of the 'reasonable share' that the owner
of the capital should get is what makes the whole idea, in the eyes of the Qur'an,
to be against the principle of justice and equity. It is indeed justified that
the real owner of the utilized capital be given a 'reasonable share' in what his
capital has produced. Nevertheless, why should such a 'reasonable share' be
determined before any production has materialized or even initiated? Why should
not the 'reasonable share' be apportioned on the basis of the actual production
that the capital has succeeded in producing? If the utilized capital has only
succeeded in producing far less than the initial expectations (or has not
succeeded in producing anything at all), then why should capital be apportioned
a bigger share than it deserves (or any share at all)? On the other hand, if the
utilized capital has succeeded in producing more than the expectations, then why
should the owner of the capital be deprived of his 'reasonable share'? In my
opinion, it is primarily these aspects of the Riba-based transactions that the Qur'an holds to be against
the principle of justice and equity and is therefore emphatic about the
prohibition of any pre-determined increase (Riba)
on a loan - even if the loan is taken for a commercial purpose.

To summarize, the reasons for the
prohibition of Riba,
as derived from the Qur'an are:

It adversely affects the spirit of
charity, sacrifice for a higher cause and mutual help, which has its serious
repercussions on the individual and collective morality of man and thus on his
success in the life hereafter.

According to the Qur'an, charging Riba
is against the principle of justice.

Does the prohibition of Riba
hinder Real Value adjustments in loans?

With the advent of paper money and
the repercussions of the management of paper money, another important question
that is commonly asked is whether any inflationary adjustment in loans would be
allowable under the Islamic law or would it also be included in the ambit of the
prohibited Riba.

The question raised in this
connection, may be stated as:

If a debtor who had borrowed a
particular amount of paper currency repays the same amount to his creditor after
a substantial time, during periods of inflation, the creditor can suffer a
significant loss in real-value terms, even though the nominal value of the loan
would be returned in full. Thus, under the circumstances, would Islam consider
it unjustified on the part of the creditor to demand from the debtor to pay a
higher nominal value than the amount originally advanced, as a compensation for
the loss of the real-value, due to inflation?

Keeping in perspective the
implication of the word Riba, as
explained in the first section, we may safely say that any inflationary
adjustment, in which the rate of such adjustment is not arbitrarily
pre-determined, but is based on the actual rate of inflation cannot be brought
under the ambit of Riba, because
of the simple reason that such an inflationary adjustment is not an increase on
a loan at a pre-determined rate.

It may be added here that such
inflationary adjustments are not only allowed but also seem to be quite
desirable. Just like charging Riba
is an injustice because it asks for an arbitrary increase in the amount loaned
to the borrower, avoiding value adjustments in times of inflation or, in other
words, avoiding to pay back the full value of the loaned amount is also an
injustice, because it asks the lender to accept a lower value, in settlement of
the value that he had originally loaned to the borrower. Obviously, If Islam
prohibits Riba due to the element
of injustice, an Islamic state, on the same principle, should make it mandatory
for all borrowers and lenders to make real value adjustments in the settlement
of all deferred payments.

However, the following points must
be kept in mind in such real value adjustments in the settlement of deferred
payments:

To avoid any potential disputes in future, the criteria for such value
adjustments should be mutually agreed upon and decided at the time of the
loan transaction.

Any equitable method for such value adjustments may be adopted. For
example, some of the bases of such adjustments may be:

the rate of inflation declared by the state; or

the average price index of a particular number of the most consumed
items in the country; or

the price of gold in the country, etc.

Whatever methods are adopted for such real value adjustments in the
settlement of deferred transactions, it should be kept in mind that they
should not be adopted as methods of inflationary adjustments only, but that
of value adjustments. This implies that the adopted method should not work
to the advantage of any of the parties concerned. In case there is a fall in
the value of paper currency (as is the case in times of inflation), the
method should provide a proportionate increase in the nominal amount of the
repayment. On the other hand, if there is a rise in the value of paper
currency (as is the case in times of deflation), the method should provide a
decrease in the nominal amount of the repayment. For example, suppose at the
time of the loan transaction, the lender and the borrower mutually agree on
relating the loan with the prevalent market price of gold and also agree on
retiring the loan by relating the loan with the prevalent market price of
gold at the time of retirement. Suppose A lends Rs. 100/- to B. The market
price of gold at the time of the transaction is Rs. 100/- per gram. Thus, it
may be agreed that A has lent one gram of gold to B. If the market price of
one gram of gold at the time of the retirement of the loan, say after five
years, is Rs. 150/-, B shall have to pay Rs. 150/- to fulfill his
obligation. By the same token, if the market price of gold falls to Rs. 90/-
at the time of retirement of the loan, B shall then be considered to have
cleared his obligation by paying Rs. 90/- to A.

What is the Difference between
Riba and Rent?

Another interesting
question/objection that is raised regarding the prohibition of Riba
is that its prohibition, when seen in comparison to the allowance of rent, under
the provisions of Islamic law, does not seem to make sense. Riba
apparently does not seem to be any different from rent. Thus, prohibition of Riba
should also prohibit the institution of charging rent. After all, what is the
difference between lending money (on which charging Riba is not allowed) and lending property (on which rent is
charged, which is seen as allowable under the Islamic law).

The question, thus, is whether there
is any empirical difference between the two charges of Riba and rent or not.

To understand the difference between
the two concepts of Riba and rent,
we shall first try to understand the simple mechanism in the working of the two
concepts.

Let us first take rent.

Rent
is a payment made for the use of an asset or a service (which may
include payment made for the use of land, premises, a telephone equipment,
machinery etc.). Rental payments continue till the time that the tenant uses the
asset or the service and are understood to cease at the end of such usage. The
end of a rental contract, is marked by:

Discontinuity, on the part of the tenant, of using the asset or service;

Transfer of the possession of the existing (i.e. used) asset from the
tenant to the owner; and

Discontinuity of the rental payments from the tenant to the owner.

It should be noted that rental
payments are not payments for the purchase of an asset, but on the contrary, are
payments for the purchase of the service provided by the asset. The asset
remains under the ownership of its original owner. At the end of the rental
agreement, the tenant is not required to replace the existing asset with a new
one and return it to the owner, but is only required to return the existing
asset to its owner. Rent,
thus, is a charge on the use of an asset or a service.

Riba,
on the other hand is a time-based charge on the sale of an asset.
In other words, Riba is a
pre-determined additional payment demanded by the seller (of the asset) from the
buyer, in return for allowing a stipulated time to make the payment for the
transacted sale. The asset being sold may be a real asset or a financial asset
(i.e. it may be a house, a piece of cloth, gold, or paper currency etc.).

A Riba-based
loan or financing agreement, in effect, is a sale of a financial asset (money)
or a real asset (like land) in which the seller allows time to the purchaser to
make the payment for the transacted sale. It should be interesting to note that
the sale of financial assets - like money - can only take place in the shape of
credit sales. No one, in his senses is likely to buy Rs. 100/- for an immediate
payment of Rs. 110/- and vice versa.
Furthermore, buying Rs. 100/- for an immediate payment of exactly Rs. 100/- is
an equally meaningless transaction. However, many people would be and are
willing to buy Rs. 100/- today for a reasonably delayed payment of Rs. 200/-.
Thus, in a Riba-based loan
agreement, the seller offers to sell his financial asset (money) for the
immediate sale price of the financial asset (i.e. the face value of money) plus
an additional sum of money charged (at a pre-determined rate) for the time
allowed to make the payment of the sale transaction. On the other hand, in a Riba-based
real asset's financing agreement, the seller offers to sell his real asset (for
instance land) for the immediate sale price of the real asset plus an additional
sum of money charged (at a pre-determined rate) for the time allowed to make the
payment of the sale transaction. In a Riba-based
loan or financing transaction, therefore, the original (full) value of the asset
(financial or real) sold, as well as an additional sum (Riba)
is to be paid to the seller.

Keeping the above explanation in
perspective, the main points of distinction between Riba
and rent may be enumerated as follows:

Nature of Charge: Rent is a charge on the use of an asset. The tenant
is required to pay the usage charge, for as long as he wants to use the
asset. Riba, on the other hand, is a time based charge (at a pre-determined rate) on the sale
of an asset (real or financial) that a seller demands from the buyer for
allowing the buyer a stipulated time for making the payment of the
purchase of the asset in question.

Period of Contract: A rental agreement may be called off at any such
time when the rented asset loses its utility in the eyes of the tenant
or is required back by the owner of the asset. At the end of the rental
agreement, the tenant is only required to deliver the possession of the
existing asset to the owner. In contrast, a Riba-based
loan or financing agreement cannot be called off without the payment of
the full (original) value of the asset sold in addition to the
accumulated (pre-determined) charge (Riba),
even if the borrower (purchaser) loses all utility or usage of the asset
lent (or sold).

Nature of Return to the Owner or Lender: At the end of a rental
agreement, the tenant is required to return the rented asset to its
owner, in its existing (used) state. The tenant is not required to
return the original (full) value of the rented asset, as it stood at the
time of the rental agreement. In
contrast to the rental agreement, in a Riba-based
loan or financing agreement, the original (full) value of the asset lent
(or sold) is to be returned to the lender (or the seller). Thus, in a Riba-based
loan or financing agreement a charge (at a pre-determined rate) is to be
paid to the seller, in addition to the return of 100% of the lent value.

Ownership Risk: In case of a rental agreement, all ownership risks are
retained by the owner of the rented asset. Thus, if, for instance, the
rented house is struck by lightening or is completely destroyed in an
earth quake, the total loss is borne by the owner of the house. In case of a loan agreement - which, for all practical
purposes, is a sale agreement with the provision of deferred payment to
the seller - all ownership risks are transferred to the borrower
(buyer), while the ownership rights are retained by the lender. Thus, in
case the loaned asset is completely destroyed in a contingency, the loss
is fully borne by the debtor, while the creditor's original value - as
well as any additional amount due to him on account of Riba
- remains fully secured. In fact, the creditor (or the
lender) faces the risk of losing his original value - and the
accumulated amount of Riba -
only if the debtor is declared to be insolvent.

Keeping these points of distinction
in mind, it should be clear that a rental agreement is quite distinct from a Riba-based
loan or financing agreement. A Rental agreement can only be comparable to a Riba-based
loan or financing agreement if:

It requires the tenant to pay the periodic rent;

It is irrevocable till the full value of the rented asset, in addition to
any predetermined service charges, is received;

It requires the tenant to return the original value of the rented asset at
the end of the rental agreement. This implies that at the end of the rental
agreement, the tenant be required to return the rented asset, not in its
existing state, but in its original state, as it was at the time the rental
agreement was contracted; and

During the time of the rental agreement, all ownership risks are
transferred to the tenant, while the ownership rights are retained by the
owner.

In the absence of these clauses, it
is obvious that a rental agreement is distinctly separate from a Riba-based
loan or financing agreement[4].

Is 'Buy-back on Mark-up'
Arrangement Lawful?

As the gravity and the significance
of the prohibition of Riba in
Islam was felt by the Government of Pakistan, efforts were directed toward
designing an economic structure which was free from Riba.
In this connection, a number of alternative were suggested and proposed for the
purpose of the mobilization and distribution of financial resources, which,
previously, were controlled through the mechanism of interest - considered and
interpreted to be Riba by the
managers of the Pakistani society. One such proposal was the "buy back on
mark-up" arrangement.

Under the "buy back on mark-up"
arrangement, a financial institution finances its client on the basis of an
agreement, whereby the client proposes to sell a particular commodity to the
bank and simultaneously buys it back at a higher price on the basis of deferred
payment. A certain rate of mark-up (generally stated as 'percent per annum') is
applied to the second sale. Thus, through this arrangement, the bank finances
the requirement of the client and gets its investment back from the client over
a stipulated period of time, with an increase.

It is generally asked whether such
an arrangement includes the element of Riba
or not.

In the light of the explanation of
the word Riba in the first
section, it should not be difficult to determine whether such an arrangement
includes any element of Riba or
not. The simple question to answer is whether or not such an arrangement of
financing includes an element of pre-determined increase on a loan (or an
investment). If the answer is 'no', then the arrangement is clear of Riba
and should, therefore, be considered as allowed in Islam. However, if the answer
is 'yes', then the arrangement is adulterated with the element of Riba
and should, therefore, be considered as prohibited.

A close look at the transaction
shall show that the referred arrangement is primarily a sale on credit
arrangement - as are all installment purchase arrangements. It may be noted that
a sale on credit arrangement, in its essence is no different from a simple loan
arrangement. The only difference is that in place of a financial asset, a real
asset - like machinery, land, building etc. - is sold out on credit (loaned or
invested), while in a simple loan arrangement, as we saw in the previous
section, a financial asset is sold out on credit. Moreover, there is also the
element of increase at a pre-determined rate that the 'lender' (or the seller)
shall get from the 'borrower' (or the buyer). Thus, the "buy back on mark-up"
arrangement entails:

A credit sale, which, in essence is no different from a loan; and

An increase on this loan at a pre-determined rate.

These, precisely, are the two
factors, which need to be present in a transaction to qualify to be termed as a Riba-based
transaction. We can, therefore, safely say that a "buy back on mark-up"
arrangement, due to the presence of the element of Riba
in it, cannot be considered as allowable in Islam.

Does Islam Prohibit Payment of
Riba?

The Qur'an has mentioned the
prohibition only of taking Riba.
However, in some of the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) - i.e. Hadith
- the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have condemned and prohibited the payment of
Riba. Furthermore, the Prophet (pbuh)
is also reported to have condemned offering one's services as a scribe for a Riba-based
loan deed and/or standing witness on such a loan deed. In view of this,
apparent, discrepancy it is sometimes asked whether Islam prohibits only the
taking of Riba or does this
prohibition also include payment of Riba.

It is clear from various verses of
the Qur'an that the real prohibition of the Shari`ah
applies to taking Riba. The Qur'an
has not even once mentioned the prohibition of giving Riba.
The reason is quite simple: the real moral crime, i.e. the injustice, according
to the Qur'an, lies in taking or devouring Riba
not in giving it. Thus, the basic initial emphasis of the Qur'an and the state
of Medina, under the leadership of
the Prophet (pbuh) was to abolish the practice of charging Riba,
not of giving Riba. Throughout
this time, the Qur'an condemned those who charged Riba;
it admonished them and reminded them of the punishment that they shall face on
the Day of Judgment for charging Riba,
and then, finally, it gave them the ultimatum that if they do not refrain from
charging Riba, the Islamic state -
under the leadership of the Prophet (pbuh) - shall declare a war against them (Al-Baqarah
2: 279). During all this time, not a single verse admonished those who paid Riba.
They were not threatened with any dire consequences of their act and were never
directed by the Prophet (pbuh) to stop the payment of Riba.
On the contrary, the Qur'an actually directed the lenders to deal with them in a
soft manner: it directed the lender to give the borrower some time to return the
lender's principal amount, if he was not in a position to retire the loan
immediately. It further advised them that if it be possible for them, they
should even forgo this principal amount as alms and get their rewards for this
generous act in the hereafter.

However, it is quite clear that
taking Riba, in contrast to, for
instance, lying is a two-way transaction. That is, one cannot take Riba, unless somebody is willing [or forced] to pay Riba.
It is this transactional aspect of Riba,
due to which, payment of Riba is
also brought under the ambit of Islamic discussion. It is clear that payment of Riba or, in other words, securing a Riba-based
loan can sometimes come under the scope of "co-operating in a sin"[5].
This is so because every case of payment of Riba
shall consequently imply the taking of Riba
by the other party of the transaction. And taking Riba, according to the Qur'an, is a major sin.

In view of this fact, Muslims
(individuals as well as states) should do their utmost in avoiding to secure a Riba-based
loan, as this, in many cases, can amount to "co-operating in a sin". However,
when the provision of a necessity of life (whether at the individual level or at
the collective level) is possible only through a loan, a person (or the
collectivity) may not be left with any option besides securing a loan and
thereby provide for the necessity[6].
In such a situation, it may be hoped that such an action will not be considered "co-operating
in a sin", because of the lack of alternatives available to the individual (or
collectivity), in question.

It was primarily in the spirit of
refraining people from cooperating in the sin of taking Riba
that the Prophet (pbuh), after completely abolishing the institution of charging
Riba from the society declared
that (when the society is cleared from the evil) even those who offer to pay Riba
to secure loans for themselves or who silently accept paying Riba
and do not bring it to the notice of the state authorities and those who are
scribes of and witnesses to the documentations for Riba-based
transactions without bringing such transactions to the notice of the state are
accomplices to the crime and therefore deserve to be punished for their acts.

As is quite clear from the foregoing
explanation, the real sin and crime, according to the Qur'an and the life of the
Prophet (pbuh) lies in taking or charging Riba.
Agreeing to give Riba becomes a crime when the society is completely cleared
from this evil and taking Riba is
legally declared to be a punishable crime at the state level.

In view of the foregoing
explanation, it should be clear that the prohibition of Riba
at the state level would primarily entail:

Prohibiting its citizens and the institutions operating within the country
from charging Riba, from any
other individuals whether residing inside or outside the jurisdiction of the
state, on any financial transactions;

Prohibiting its citizens and the institutions operating within the country
from charging Riba, from any
other institutions whether operating inside or outside the jurisdiction of
the state, on any financial transactions;

Refraining itself from charging Riba
from any individuals whether residing inside or outside the jurisdiction of
the state, on any financial transactions;

Refraining itself from charging Riba
from any institutions whether operating inside or outside the jurisdiction
of the state, on any financial transactions;

Refraining itself from charging Riba
from any other countries on any loans or aids advanced to them;

To promulgate and implement laws for the punishment of its citizens and
the institutions operating within the jurisdiction of the state that do not
abide by the above prohibitions;

To promulgate and implement laws for the punishment of such of its
citizens and institutions operating within the jurisdiction of the state,
who agree to pay Riba to other
citizens and institutions operating within the state on any financial
transactions and avoid to bring such activities to the notice of the state,
by considering such citizens and institutions accomplices in the crime;

To promulgate and implement laws for the punishment of such of its
citizens and institutions operating within the jurisdiction of the state who
act as scribes of or witnesses to a Riba-based
financial contract and avoid to bring such contract to the notice of the
state, by considering such citizens and institutions accomplices to the
crime.

It should be kept in mind that the
payment of Riba on loans secured
from individuals and institutions operating outside the jurisdiction of the
state cannot be brought under the scope of any legislation passed for the
prohibition of Riba in a
particular Muslim state. Such payment shall be governed, not by the legislation
of the particular Muslim state, but by the agreement/contract between the
borrower and the lender. The two parties to the loan contract may, at any time,
revise the terms of the contract with mutual consent, and thereby make the
contract coherent with the injunctions of the Islamic law. However, such
revision of the contract can neither be made on the whims, likings or the
religious beliefs of the borrower only nor can it be enforced by the Muslim
state of which the borrower is a citizen.

The government of the Muslim state
should obviously be advised to do their utmost in securing Riba free loans. However, as the saying goes: "beggars cannot
be choosers", if such arrangement is not possible payment of Riba
shall be made and the contracts fulfilled, without effecting any of the
aforementioned points of the proposed prohibition of Riba
within the Muslim state.

Honoring Riba-based
Commitments

One of the very pertinent and
important questions that is generally asked with reference to the abolition of Riba
is that if at any stage in time, an Islamic state decides on passing a
legislation whereby all Riba-based
transactions are abolished, then what would be the fate of the existing donors
or lenders of such an Islamic state. Would such a legislation or abolition imply
a one-sided revision of all such Riba-based
contracts? Or would the Islamic state continue to pay Riba
on its past commitments, as originally contracted?

In the questionnaire that was
circulated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, this question, in view of its
practical significance, was also included. The learned Court had asked:

If all the [stated] transactions
are held to be violative of the Islamic injunctions, what will be the
treatment of the past transactions and agreements? Especially what procedure
should the government adopt with regard to the previous foreign loans?

As a principle, it should be
remembered that Muslims, by the clear and direct injunctions of the Qur'an, are
bound to fulfill all contracts or agreements that they have entered into. The
Qur'an, in Al-Maaidah 5: 1, says:

O ye who believe, be
true to your obligations.

At another instance, the Qur'an,
while mentioning the qualities of true believers (Al-Baqarah
2: 177) says:

And [they are] true
to their contracts, when they contract.

Then again, in Al-Israa 17: 34, the Qur'an says:

And honor your promise. Indeed you
shall be accountable for all your promises.

In view of the cited verses of the
Qur'an, it is extremely important that all past and present commitments and
agreements with foreign creditors and donors - without any exception - be
honored[7].
However, a Muslim state may, in view of its internal legislation, request its
creditors to renew their contracts on any such new terms as the Muslim state may
have to offer. Nevertheless, if the creditors do not accept the terms of the new
contract, the Muslim state shall be bound to fulfill its running obligations.
Under no circumstances, whatsoever, can the loan contract be revised without the
approval of the creditors.

This would mean that payment of Riba
on these foreign loans should be made as was agreed upon between the lenders and
the borrower at the time of the contract or, if possible, on the basis of any
mutual revision of the contract. As has been implied in the previous section,
the Muslim state after passing the legislation to effect the abolition of Riba
shall refrain from taking Riba,
but shall have to pay Riba to its
foreign creditors as per the mutual contract between these creditors and the
Muslim state. The government of the Muslim state should, however, feel the moral
burden of being an accomplice in an act that the Qur'an has forbidden and should
therefore direct all its efforts in retiring the Riba-based
loans of such foreign creditors and thereby relieving itself from its obligation
towards the Lord of the worlds.

As far as the domestic loans are
concerned, the ideal state will be to stop payment of Riba
on these loans with immediate effect, as soon as any such legislation is
promulgated. Nevertheless, such an action would essentially require the Muslim
state to be in a position to retire these domestic loans immediately.

Furthermore, keeping in mind that an
indeterminable amount of the Riba-based
domestic debts have been provided by people whose lives depend on the income (Riba)
generated by these debts, it would be imperative that the Muslim state provide a
non-Riba-based substitute to these domestic creditors and should
then convert the existing Riba-based
debts to the new substitute for all such people who want their loans converted
to the non-Riba-based substitute.

Till
such time, the Muslim state, while meeting its obligations, should, in the light
of the directives of the Qur'an, educate its citizens regarding the intensity
and gravity of the "crime" of taking Riba
and thereby discourage people from such a heinous act.

[1]
The Qur'an has mentioned the prohibition or the abhorrence of taking Riba
at Al-Baqarah 2:
275 - 280, Aal Imraan 3: 130
and Al-Room 30: 39. At each of
these instances the context is that of spending for the cause of Islam or
for the general well being of people.

[2]
That is for the requirements of the well being of Islam and the Muslim
collectivity, in general.

[4]
Keeping the stated clauses in mind, it should be clear for the reader that a
"Financial Lease" contract or a "Lease-back" arrangement, which normally
include the stated clauses should not be allowed in an Islamic state, due to
the element of Riba in such
contracts.

[5]
The Qur'an, it should be remembered, has categorically directed the Muslims
to refrain not only from sin, but also becoming an accomplice in sin. The
Qur'an in Al-Maaidah 5: 2
says:

Cooperate with
each other in goodness and piety, but not in sinfulness and transgression.

[6]
As far as the question regarding whether a particular expenditure may or may
not be considered a necessity of life is concerned, it is only the
particular individual (or collectivity) who can answer this question. A
guiding principle in this respect may be that the provision of all the "needs"
be considered expenditures on necessities. On the other hand, all
expenditures on luxuries or on items that only make life "more comfortable"
be considered expenditures on "non-necessities", for which, Riba'-based
(or for that matter, even non- Riba'-based)
loans should be avoided.

[7]
To have an idea of the importance of the fulfillment of contracts and
agreements, in the eyes of the Qur'an, one may take a look at Al-Anfaal
8: 72, in which the Qur'an has disallowed fighting against peoples with whom
Muslims have a no-war pact, even if such people are guilty of oppressing
their Muslim citizens or of atrocities against them. Thus, it is easily
imaginable that in the eyes of God, even something as justified and
honorable as fighting against injustice is not allowed if such fighting
entails disregard to an existing pact or agreement.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in determining the applications and implications of the term "Riba" asked for assistance of religious scholars and other interested people of the country. For this purpose, answers to ten questions were sought. The ninth among these questions was:

If all the transactions are held to be violative of the Islamic injunctions, what will be the treatment of the past transactions and agreements? Especially what procedure should the government adopt with regard to the previous foreign loans?

My Reply to the question follows:

All commitments and agreements with foreign donors - without any exception - shall have to be honored. This would mean that payment of interest on these foreign loans shall be made as agreed upon between the donors and the borrowers at the time of the contract or, if possible, on the basis of any mutual revision of the contract, which in the present circumstances seems very unlikely. The state of Pakistan after passing a legislation for abolishing "Riba" shall refrain from taking interest (Riba) but shall have to pay interest (Riba) to its foreign creditors as per the mutual contract between these creditors and the state of Pakistan. Furthermore, the government of Pakistan should be advised to sincerely feel the moral burden of being an accomplice in an act that God has forbidden and should therefore direct all its efforts in retiring Riba-based loans of foreign creditors and thereby relieve itself from its obligation towards the Lord of the worlds.

As far as domestic loans are concerned, the ideal state will be to stop payment of "Riba" on these loans with immediate effect, as soon as the law is promulgated. However, such an action would essentially require the state of Pakistan to also be in a position to retire these domestic loans immediately. Keeping in view the liquidity position of the state of Pakistan, it is quite obvious that this is not possible. In this situation, while also keeping in mind that an indeterminable number of the securities and certificate holders (creditors) of these loans are people whose lives depend on the income generated by these certificates, it would be imperative that the state of Pakistan should provide a non-Riba based substitute to these certificates and securities and should then convert these certificates and securities to that substitute for all such people who want these certificates converted to the non-Riba based substitute. Till such time the state of Pakistan, while meeting its obligations, should educate its citizens regarding the intensity and gravity of the "crime" of taking Riba in the light of the directives of the Qur'an and thereby discourage people from such a heinous act.

20th March 1999

::/wysiwyg_article::::articlecategory::39::/articlecategory::::jseblodend::::/jseblodend::]]>learner@understanding-islam.com (Moiz Amjad)HistoryFri, 19 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0000Understanding the Law of Inheritance of the Qur'anhttp://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/sources-of-islam/understanding-the-law-of-inheritance-of-the-qur-an-14
http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/sources-of-islam/understanding-the-law-of-inheritance-of-the-qur-an-14::jseblod::ui_articles::/jseblod::::wysiwyg_article::

Mr. Jochen Katz, in one of his articles[1]
has raised a number of questions regarding the 'Law of Inheritance' of the
Qur'an. The purpose of this writing is to answer the questions raised by him.

But before an attempt is made to answer the questions raised by Mr. Katz, it
seems appropriate that I should state how I understand the related verses of the
Qur'an[2].
I think that the correct understanding of these verses will itself provide
answers to most of the questions raised by Mr. Katz.

Nevertheless, for a more meaningful understanding of the law, it seems
appropriate that we start by taking a close look at a simple translation of the
related verses of the Qur'an.

Translation of the Related Verses

The law of inheritance has been given in the Qur'an in Surah Al-Nisaa (the
fourth chapter) verses 11 & 12 and then in verse 176. The translation of the
related portions of these verses (as I understand them) is given below:

Verse-11:

"Allah enjoins you about [the
share of inheritance of] your children: A male's share shall equal that of two
females -- in case there are only daughters, more than two shall have two-thirds
of what has been left behind. And if there be only one daughter, her share shall
be half -- and if the deceased has children, the parents shall inherit a sixth
each, and if he has no children and the parents are his heirs then his mother
shall receive a third, and if he has brothers and sisters then the mother's
share is the same one-sixth. [These shares shall be distributed] after carrying
out any will made by the deceased or payment of any debt owed by him (the
deceased). You know not who among your children and your parents are nearest to
you in benefit. This is the law of Allah. Indeed Allah is wise, all
knowing."

Verse-12:

"You shall get half of what
your wives leave, if they die childless. But if they do have children, your
share shall then be a quarter of what they leave after carrying out any will
made by the deceased or payment of any debt owed by her. And they (your wives)
shall have a quarter of what you leave, if you die childless. But in case you
have children, they shall then get one-eighth of what you leave, after carrying
out any will made by you or payment of any debt owed by you (the deceased). And
if a man or a woman is made an heir on account of his [or her] kalalah
relationship [with the deceased] and he [or she] has one brother or sister, the
brother and sister shall each receive a sixth and if they be more than two, they
shall then share in one-third, after carrying out any will that had been made by
the deceased or payment of any debt owed by him -- without harming anyone. This
is a command from Allah and Allah is all-knowing, most forbearing."

Verse-176:

"They ask you. Say: Allah
enjoins you about your kalalah heirs that if a man dies childless and he
has only a sister, she shall inherit half of what he leaves; and if sheÂ
dies childless, then her brother shall be her heir; and if their are two
sisters, they shall inherit two-thirds of what he [or she] leaves. If there are
many brothers and sisters, the share of each male should be that of two females.
Allah makes [His commands] clear to you, so that you do not err. Allah has
knowledge of all things."

A Brief Explanation of the Law

According to these verses of the Qur'an The first right on the property of
the deceased is that of the creditors. After the payment to the creditors, any
will made by the deceased shall be executed. The remainder of the property and
assets of the deceased, if any, shall be distributed among the inheritors in the
specified proportions.

Two Categories of Inheritors

A close analysis of these verses shall show that according to this law, there
are basically two kinds of inheritors:

Inheritors who are to be given a fixed proportion of the total
inheritance; and

Inheritors who are to share, in a specified proportion, the balance of the
inheritance after the share of inheritors of the first category has been
given.

The first category of inheritors includes parents[3]
(in case a person has any children or brothers and sisters) and spouse[4].
On the other hand, the second category of inheritors includes children[5],
brothers and sisters[6]
(in case a person dies childless) and parents[7]
(in case a person has neither children, nor brothers and sisters).

It simply means that in case any or all inheritors of the first category are
present, first they shall be given their stipulated portion of the inheritance.
The balance of the inheritance shall then be distributed among the second
category of inheritors, according to their specified proportion. On the other
hand, in case any or all of the inheritors of the first category do not exist,
then all the property and assets of the deceased shall be distributed among the
inheritors of the second category, according to the stipulated principle or
according to their specified shares.

The Shares

Shares of the Inheritors of the First Category

Parents

The share of the parents (as inheritors of the first category, i.e., when the
deceased has either children or brothers and/or sisters) shall be one-sixth each[8].

If the wife dies childless -- half of the total property and assets of the
wife

If the wife had any children -- a quarter of the total property and assets
of the wife

In case of Wife:

If the husband dies childless -- a quarter of the
property and assets of the husband.

If the husband had any children -- one-eighth of
the property and assets of the husband.

Shares of the Inheritors of the Second Category

Children

The deceased's children shall share in the balance of the property and assets
of the deceased, after the stipulated shares of all the inheritors of the first
category have been given. The share of the deceased's children[10]
is as follows:

If there are both sons and daughters -- the share of each son shall be
double that of each daughter, in the balance of the property and assets of
the deceased after the shares of the first category of inheritors is given..

If there are only sons -- all the sons shall share equally in the balance
of the property and assets of the deceased after the shares of the first
category of inheritors is given.

If there is only one son -- he shall take all the balance of the property
and assets of the deceased after the shares of the first category of
inheritors is given.

If there is only one daughter (and no other children) -- she shall get
half of the balance of the property and assets of the deceased after the
shares of the first category of inheritors is given.

If there be two or more daughters (and no sons) -- they shall share
equally in two-thirds of the balance of the property and assets of the
deceased after the shares of the first category of inheritors is given.

Brothers
And Sisters

According to verse 176, in case the deceased is childless, and has any
brothers and/or sisters, the share of brothers and sisters of the deceased shall
be exactly the same as that of his sons and/or daughters respectively, if he had
any. Thus the share of the brothers and sisters shall be as under:

If there are both brothers and sisters -- the share of each brother shall
be double that of each sister, in the balance of the property and assets of
the deceased after the shares of the first category of inheritors is given..

If there are only brothers -- all the brothers shall share equally in the
balance of the property and assets of the deceased after the shares of the
first category of inheritors is given.

If there is only one brother -- he shall take all the balance of the
property and assets of the deceased after the shares of the first category
of inheritors is given.

If there is only one sister (and no other brothers and/or sisters) -- she
shall get half of the balance of the property and assets of the deceased
after the shares of the first category of inheritors is given.

If there be two or more sisters (and no brothers) -- they shall share
equally in two-thirds of the balance of the property and assets of the
deceased after the shares of the first category of inheritors is given.

Parents

In case a person has neither children nor brothers and/or sisters then his
parents shall share the balance of his property and assets after satisfying the
claims of the inheritors of the first category[11]
(in this case, the spouse of the deceased).

"Kalalah" Inheritors

Besides the stated relations (i.e., children, parents, brothers and/or
sisters and spouse), the Qur'an has also referred to another kind of relations
-- the "Kalalah". In the Arabic language, the word "Kalalah"
is used in different meanings. In verse 12, it is used for relations other than
the parents and children of a person.

Thus, if a person wants to add any kalalah relative (brothers and/or
sisters, in the presence of children, and maternal and/or paternal aunts and
uncles etc.) with the inheritors specified in the Qur'an[12],
in their absence[13]
or after their share has been given[14],
he can do so by nominating the desired person. Such nomination cannot be made
for any of the persons whose share has been specified in the Qur'an, neither can
such nominations alter any of the shares specified in the Qur'an[15].

According to the Qur'an, if any one has made such a nomination in favor of
any of his kalalah relatives, the following rule shall apply[16]:

If the nominated person has one brother and/or one sister, then a sixth
each of the nominated amount shall be given to this brother and/or sister.
The balance of the nominated amount shall be given to the nominated person.

If the nominated person has more than two brothers and/or sisters they
shall all equally share one-third of the total nominated amount and the
balance of the nominated amount shall be given to the nominee.

What About the Balance?

According to our understanding of the law of inheritance given in the Qur'an,
there can be certain instances
where a portion of the wealth of the deceased is left over after all the heirs
have been given their shares. In the same way, if a childless person has neither
brothers and/or sisters nor parents, a significant portion of his wealth shall
remain undistributed. One solution to this problem, as indicated above, is that
the Qur'an has directed the person to make someone his heir. But in case, the
person has not done so, then what is to be done with the remaining balance? The
following tradition provides an answer to this question, in most of the cases:

Give the heirs their share; if something remains, it is for the closest
male relative. (Muslim, Kitabu'l-Faraidh, Chapter 1)

This is the law of inheritance of the Qur'an.

In the following section we shall examine the questions asked about this law
by Mr. Jochen Katz.

Questions & Criticisms of Mr. Jochen Katz

Mr. Katz has stated in his article:

There are numerous simple cases which are not clear how to deal with them
at all, since they don't fall under the instructions given. For example, if
I have only one daughter, verse 4:11 says that she gets half [seemingly no
matter who else might inherit]. The verse also states the general rule that
a son inherits double of what a daughter inherits. Does that mean a single
son would get all? Even if there are still parents which should also get a
share? Also, it is regulated that one daughter would get half, and more than
two daughters will [equally] share in 2/3. How much would two daughters get
among them? The average between 1/2 and 2/3?

In the explanation of the law above, I have already dealt with these
questions. I do not think there would be any use of repeating the answers
again.

Mr. Katz asks:

Suppose I was already a widower and have only one daughter. When I die my
one daughter gets half according to verse 11. What happens to the rest?

This question has also been dealt with in the explanation of the law. There
is absolutely no reason of repeating the answer.

Mr. Katz asks:

Suppose my wife has no relatives at all [e.g. being a war orphan] and she
dies before we are blessed with any children. According to verse 12, I get
half of her property. Who gets the other half of her property? Only half of
the inheritance is regulated according to the Qur'an.

Before answering this question, I would like to clarify that the directive
of the Qur'an is not to regulate the total inheritance of a person but to fix
the shares of the closest inheritors. There is a possibility that a
significant part of the total property of a person is left unregulated. In
such instances, the person is given the choice to select any person or
persons, related or unrelated to him as his inheritor(s). In case no such
person has been nominated by the deceased, then the closest male relative of
the deceased shall inherit; and in case there are no relatives of the deceased
then the state (government) of residence of the deceased can make any
regulation to regulate this property. Any regulation of the state, in this
connection, that does not alter the prescribed shares of the inheritors
mentioned in the Qur'an and does not hinder the freedom of the deceased is
allowed under the Islamic law.

Mr. Katz asks:

The same situation with switched roles, my wife would get a quarter, but
who gets the other 3/4 of my property?

See answer to question No. 3.

Mr. Katz asks:

I die and leave my wife and one daughter but I have no other relatives,
which means that my daughter gets 1/2 = 4/8 [verse 11] and my wife gets 1/8
[verse 12] leaving again 3/8 unaccounted for.

The answer to this question is the same as that to question no. 3. But it
must be pointed out that the calculation of shares is not accurate. According
to the explanation provided above the shares should be calculated as under:

Wife: One-eighth of the total assets of the deceased.

Daughter: Half of the remaining seven-eighths of the assets, i.e., 7/16th
of the total assets.

Balance: The remaining 7/16th shall be given to the person
bequeathed by the deceased; in the absence of such a person, it shall be
given to the closest male relative of the deceased; in the absence of such
a relative, the balance shall be distributed as per the regulations of the
state of residence of the deceased.

Mr. Katz asks:

In all these [and several more such] cases the question is: Who gets the
rest? I agree this can be taken care of by donating it to charities or the
local Masjid. But the problem is the Qur'an does not tell us what to
do with it. Can the rest also be distributed among the wife and children?
But that procedure would make their shares different from what has been
specified in the Qur'an! What is the point of specifying clear shares
and then abandoning the instructions?

The "rest", as stated earlier, is left on the discretion of the
deceased. Whoever, in his opinion, needs to get this "rest" may get
it. Yes, it may be donated to a charity or a local Masjid.

The Qur'an does not tell us what to do with it so that the individual is
left with the option of deciding about it. As has already been stated, the
object of the Qur'an is not to distribute the whole property and assets of an
individual, but to guide the Muslims regarding the rights of their relatives
on their property. Obviously, it is not necessary that the accumulated rights
of our relatives, in all the cases, must equal the total property.

No, the rest cannot be distributed among the wife and children. No change
can be made in the prescribed shares of the inheritors mentioned in the
Qur'an.

Mr. Katz says:

If I (as the male head of the family) die and leave behind (in the order
given in the verses above):

3 daughters

both parents

my wife

then they will receive

2/3 (2/9 each)

1/3 (1/6 each)

1/8

according to

verse 11

verse 11

verse 12

which adds up to

2/3+

1/3+

1/8=

1+1/8

Where is the extra 1/8 going to come from? Is the local Muslim community
[the "fund for balancing out the inheritance shares that don't add
up"] going to pay it? After all, if they would be getting the left-overs
from the cases when the sum is less than one in the examples above, that
would only be fair.

The calculations given in the above table are not correct. I am sure that
Mr. Katz will now be in a position to calculate these shares correctly in the
light of the explanation of the law above. In any case, the correct
calculations are as under:

Parents: Both parents shall receive one-sixth each, i.e., one-third of
the total property.

Wife: The wife shall receive one-eighth of the total property.

Balance: The balance after giving away the shares of the first category
of inheritors shall be 1-(1/3+1/8) = 1-(11/24) = 13/24

Daughters: The three daughters shall equally share two-third of the
balance of the property and assets of the deceased after the shares of all
the inheritors of the first category have been given. 13/24 x 2/3 = 13/36;
share of each daughter shall be 13/36 x 1/3 = 13/108

Balance: The balance (i.e., 1-59/72 = 13/72) shall be given to the person
bequeathed by the deceased; in the absence of such a person, it shall be
given to the closest male relative of the deceased; in the absence of such
a relative, the balance shall be distributed as per the regulations of the
state of residence of the deceased.

There is not a single imaginable case, where the total shares assigned by
the Qur'an exceed 1.

Mr. Katz says:

One son and one daughter. 4:11 says that one daughter will get half and a
son will get double a daughter's share, which would be everything. 150% of
the available property is distributed and we haven't even looked at the
parents and spouse yet.

Mr. Katz has mixed up two separate situations in his statement. According
to 4: 11, if the deceased has both sons and daughters then the principle:
"a male's share shall equal that two females" will apply. While the
statement: "one daughter will get half" shall apply only when a
person has no other (male or female) child except the "one
daughter". This is quite clear from the statement of the Qur'an:
"... inÂ case there are only daughters, more than two shall have
two-thirds of what has been left behind. And if there be only one daughter,
her share shall be half..."

In the stated case (one son and one daughter), therefore, the principle:
"a male's share shall equal that of two females" will apply. Thus,
after the share of all the inheritors of the first category (i.e., parents and
spouse) have been given, the male shall get two-thirds of the balance and the
female shall receive one-third of the balance.

Mr. Katz says:

let us assume that 4:11 doesn't only speak about 2/3 for more than two
daughters but the 2/3 share holds every time when there are two or more
children as many Muslims interpret it. But then the last mentioned case
above would still be the same problem for any number of children since the
children get 2/3, the parents get 1/3 and then there is nothing left for the
wife which is supposed to get 1/8.

As has been clarified in the explanation of the law above, in verse 4: 11,
the two-thirds share is the share of a person's children, if they consist only
of two or more daughters and no son. It does not apply "every time when
there are two or more children (male as well as female) as many Muslims
interpret it". Whenever the children of the deceased consist of male as
well as female offspring, the principle: a male's share shall equal that of
two females" shall apply.

"The last mentioned case" or any other case would never cause
"the same" problem, if the law is properly understood. The children
(if they consist only of two or more females) shall get two-thirds of the
balance of the property and assets of the deceased, after the share of the
parents (one-third) and that of the wife (one-eighth) has been given. Thus,
even in the stated case, there shall be a balance remaining after all the
shares have been given, which may be distributed according to the bequest of
the deceased, or in the absence of it, may be given to the closest male
relative of the deceased; and if no such relative exists, may be distributed
accordingÂ to the regulations passed by the legislative of the state.

There can be no imaginable case, even if the maximum number of wives
(i.e., four) is assumed for the deceased, where the accumulated shares of all
the inheritors exceeds one.

Mr. Katz says:

When a man dies and leaves behind a mother, wife and one sister only,
then according to 4:11 the mother gets 1/3 (because he has neither children
nor a brother), the wife gets 1/4 according to 4:12 (because they have no
children) and the sister gets 1/2 according to 4:176 (because he has no
children). Not only do we have again distributed more than there exists
[1/12 in overdraft], we also have the very strange result that the direct
heirs [people of direct relationship = spouse, children, parents] get each
less than the indirect heir which is his sister. It becomes even worse if he
has more than one sister since they then get 2/3 instead of 1/2 and we get
even more into overdraft.

Though it does not make much of a difference in proving this point
incorrect, but still it must be clarified here that the word: "Ikhwatun"
in verse 4: 11, translated by Arberry as "brothers" denotes the
existence of both brothers and/or sisters, whether one or more. Therefore, it
should more accurately be translated as "siblings" or "brothers
and sisters". This is a normal usage in the Arabic language. In verse
176, the Qur'an has removed all doubts that this word has not been used only
for brothers, but for brothers and sisters both. It says in verse 176: "in
kanu ikhwatan rijalan wa nisa'an" (i.e., if there be siblings, male
and/or female).

Now, to take the stated situation, the shares of the various inheritors
shall be as under:

Mother: The mother's share shall be one-sixth of the total assets of the
deceased.

Wife: The wife's share shall be one-fourth of the total assets of the
deceased.

Balance: The balance after the shares of the first category have been
given shall be: 1-(1/6+1/4) = 1-(5/12) = 7/12

Sister: The sisters share shall be half of the balance of the property
and assets of the deceased after the shares of the inheritors of the first
category have been given. 7/12 x 1/2 = 7/24

Total: 7/24 + 5/12 = 17/24

Balance: The balance (1 - 17/24 = 7/24) shall be given to the person
bequeathed by the deceased; in the absence of such a person, it shall be
given to the closest male relative of the deceased; in the absence of such
a relative, the balance shall be distributed as per the regulations of the
state of residence of the deceased.

In this particular case, the sister (indirect heir?) does get more than the
mother and wife (direct heirs?), because in this situation she is the only
sister and one of the inheritors of the first category (i.e., the deceased's
father) is not present. But then again, what exactly is wrong with such a
situation?

Mr. Katz states:

Anybody who has ever dealt with dividing out an inheritance will know how
easily that can get nasty and how this can poison family relationships if
people think they have been cheated. Promising certain people a definite
share but not being able to pay them this share because more was promised
than is available is the surest recipe for disaster.

As stated earlier, there is no imaginable situation where the Qur'an has
promised more than is available. Can any of my readers give me an instance?

Mr. Katz states:

According to 4:12 and 4:176 the siblings of the person who died share in
the inheritance only when there are no direct heirs (i.e. parents or
children according to Muslim understanding - see Yusuf Ali's translation and
footnote), but in 4:11, the portion of the mother depends on the existence
of brothers, which makes sense only if these brothers get the part that is
taken from the mother. If they do not get it, and we suppose the shares
added up to one without the existence of brothers, then who gets this sixth
that was taken away from the mother by the pure existence of these brothers?
It either does not add up with or without the existence of this brother if
he does not get this sixth of the mother.

The explanation of the law above should suffice as an answer to this
statement. To summarize, it should be noted that:

According to 4: 176, the siblings of a person inherit his property in
the absence of his children. Verse 176 clearly states: "if a man dies
childless...". It is quite clear from these words that the absence of
parents is not aÂ necessary condition for siblings to have a share in
the inheritance.

The word "ikhwatun" in 4: 11 is not used to mean
"brothers" but "siblings" or "brothers and
sisters", as is substantiated by the same usage of this word in verse
176.

The portion of the mother is reduced if the deceased has any siblings
because, as the learned writer writer has rightly assumed, the siblings of
the deceased have a share in the inheritance of the deceased, in the
absence of the deceased's children.

The referred part of 4: 12 has normally been wrongly interpreted. I am
sure if the above explanation of the law is closely followed, it shall
remove all the questions asked in this connection.

Mr. Katz states:

Last problem for now: 4:12 says that in case there are no direct heirs
[parents or children] then "brother or a sister, to each of the two a
sixth" while 4:176 says in the same situation that "they shall
receive two-thirds of what he leaves" [double of what 4:12 says].

As stated earlier, the word "kalalah" in verse 4: 12 has
been wrongly interpreted to mean that the deceased has no children or parents.
As has been stated earlier, it actually means "relations other than
children or parents". The remaining part of the statement has been
answered under the section titled: "Kalalah" Inheritors.

Mr. Katz states:

Given the prime importance of this topic, it is an even worse problem to
find contradictions on this issue in the Qur'an.

I shall truly like to know about a single contradiction in these verses.

Mr. Katz states:

Furthermore it seems that I can bequeath whatever I have to whomever I
will, since bequests [and debts] are to be taken care off before the rest is
distributed to the nearer or wider family. That this can lead to rather
gross injustices (e.g. not leaving any support to your elderly parents) does
not need to be explained in great detail.

The Qur'an has allowed a person to bequeath any part of his property to
anyone he chooses, except for those whose share has been prescribed in the
Qur'an. But even here, the basic guidance has been provided in the following
words:

"... after carrying out any will made by the deceased or payment of
any debt owed by him [the deceased] -- without harming anyone. This
is a command from Allah and Allah is all-knowing, most forbearing."

The last words of the selected portion of the
verse, "Allah is all knowing, most forbearing" are a warning as well
as an encouragement for the Muslims. A warning -- that if they knowingly
commit any injustice, they must remember that Allah is all knowing, nothing of
their deeds is hidden from Him. And an encouragement -- that if they err
without the intention of harming anyone, then Allah is most forbearing. He
will forgive the unintentional harm done by the devoted and sincere.

The Prophet (pbuh) is also reported to have said:

It is better that you leave your heirs some wealth rather than leave them
poor. (Bukhari, Kitabu'l-Wasaya)

In the presence of these teachings, it is still quite possible that a
person errs in judgment and some harm is done to his heirs, because of his
bequest. But then again, this is the risk in every case of freedom granted to
the individual. Taking away this right, would close the doors of contributing
any good that an individual can contribute in his own judgment. Finally,
according to 2: 182:

He that suspects an error or an injustice on the part of a testator and
brings about a settlement among the parties incurs no guilt.

the Qur'an allows that if a person's bequest results in an obvious
injustice, it may be altered by bringing about a settlement among the parties
concerned.

Mr. Katz states:

A further contradiction in the inheritance laws is the above not
mentioned verse of Sura 4:7

To the men a share of what parents and kinsmen leave and to the
women a share of what parents and kinsmen leave, whether it (the
property) be little or much, a share apportioned.

determining that men and women should each get an equal share (the
parallel construction makes that obvious) clearly contradicting the
instruction in 4:11, saying

Allah charges you, concerning your children:to the male the like of the portion of two females, ...

The above objection is completely unfounded. According to the most commonly
known rules of the Arabic language, as well as most other languages like for
instance English, if the same noun is repeated with an indefinite article, the
two nouns normally do not stand for the same thing. For instance in Arabic,
you say: "ishtaraitu farasan wa be'tu farasan" (I bought a
horse and I sold a horse). "A horse" in the first part of the
sentence has to be different from the one in the second part. Had this
sentence been like: "ishtraitu farasan wa be'tu'l-faras" (I
bought a horse and I sold the horse), the second "horse" being with
the definite article, shall now, normally, be taken to mean the same horse
that was bought. Innumerable examples can be quoted from the Arabic language
that will show that if the same common noun, with an indefinite article is
repeated, as is the case in the referred part of 4: 7, the two nouns signify
two different realities or concepts. Thus, in the referred part of 4: 7, when
the word "share" is repeated as a common noun, preceded by an
indefinite article, the two words cannot refer to the same amount of share. It
must, in such a case refer to different values or amounts of shares.

The last comment that Mr. Katz has made on this issue relates not to any
mathematical or "share calculation" issue but to the lack of
justice in the assignment of various shares. Mr. Katz begins his argument
with the following statement:

...Muslims argue that the shares of a male are double than that of a
female not because a male is worth more, but because the male has the duty
to support his family while the female can spend it all on herself without
the need to share.

Because the whole argument of Mr. Katz on the issue of 'lack of justice' is
primarily based on his acceptance of the reason given by the Muslims in this
respect, as stated above, I would therefore like to present a brief analysis
of this reason.

Mr. Katz is absolutely right in saying that the reason normally given by
the Muslims as the basis for the difference in the shares of the male and the
female relatives of the deceased is that the male has been assigned the duty
to support his family, while the female has no such duty placed on her. I must
admit that this can be taken as one of the reasons for the disparity in the
male/female shares, but a close analysis of the verses on inheritance shows
that it is not the reason given by the Qur'an. The Qur'an on the other
hand, gives an absolutely different reason for assigning different shares in a
person's assets to his relatives after his death. The Qur'an says:

You know not who among your children and your parents are nearest to you
in benefit. This is the law of Allah. Indeed Allah is wise, all knowing.

Obviously, the extent of help and co-operation which a person receives from
his parents, children and other close relatives cannot, normally, be
paralleled by any other association. Undoubtedly, the world has always
considered the kins of a deceased as the rightful beneficiaries of the wealth
that he leaves behind. But certain issues, in this regard, have always
remained unresolved. For instance, who among the relatives is nearest with
respect to the benefits he holds for the deceased, and how should the shares
of inheritance be calculated on this basis. It is not that the human endeavour
in this regard has fallen prey to lack of application, rather it is due to
certain inherrent limitations of the human mind which have made this task
beyond its reach. Love, hatred, prejudice and other emotions have made it very
difficult for the human intellect to come to grips with this challenge.
Consequently, the wise and the all knowing has Himself guided mankind in this
regard to relieve them from the disorders which have originated and can
originate on this account.

Thus, the basic principle on which the shares of the various relatives of
the deceased have been assigned is the benefit that accrues or can accrue from
these relations to the deceased.

After this clarification, let us look at some of the objections raised by
Mr. Katz in this regard. Mr. Katz states:

Imagine the situation that a man dies and leaves no direct heirs but only
a brother and a sister. His sister might be a widow with children, without
support from others, but she has to feed her children. The brother might be
a rich business man and bachalor who has nobody to take care of but himself.
Nevertheless, the brother will get 2/3 and the sister will get 1/3 of the
estate.

As stated earlier, the basic principle in the assignment of shares is not
the "need" of the particular inheritor but the benefit that has
accrued or can accrue from this relation to the person in question (the
deceased). Furthermore, it must also be kept in mind that the assignment of
these shares is not the only means of supporting a 'needy sister'. A
person has all the authority and right to give away as much of his assets as
he desires, during his life, to any of his relatives who are in need. The
shares mentioned in the verses under consideration are shares in the
inheritance of a person. Such inheritance, if it is to be regulated in any
way, cannot be regulated by keeping only exceptional situations in view. There
can be a number of ways of dealing with such exceptional situations, if the
person really wants to do so, while following the law in letter and spirit.
(Most of the examples and situations given by Mr. Katz may be considered in
the light of this paragraph).

Mr. Katz writes:

The male does get double the female no matter what their respective
financial situation is and how many people depend on them. He might
voluntarily give money to the needy relative. But the inheritance law does
not say so, and he does not have to.

I am surprised to read what Mr. Katz has written here. Obviously, it is not
for an inheritance law to suggest to a sharer in the inheritance to
give up his or her share for some other sharer. The purpose of an inheritance
law is only to assign shares to various relations of a deceased in a generally
acceptable and just manner. I am sure Mr. Katz will not negate my statement
that the Qur'an has generally prompted its believers to spend for the well
being of their relatives. Not only that, the Qur'an persuades the Muslims to
spend for the general well being of others, even in times of difficulty and
financial stress.

It is very unfortunate that while considering an idea different from our
own, we are more interested in pointing out what, according to our own
(sometimes erroneous) thinking, 'should have been', rather than find out and
understand what really 'is'.

I hope that Mr. Katz and all those who read this article will notify me of
anything that is incorrect or is not based on the proper understanding of the
Qur'an or the Arabic language.

...if the deceased has children, the parents shall inherit a sixth each,
and if he has no children and the parents are his only heirs then his mother
shall receive a third, and if he has brothers and sisters then the mother's
share is the same one-sixth.

If we look at this part of the verse closely, we
shall see that in case the deceased has any children or, in the absence of
children, has any brothers and/or sisters, the parents are to receive a fixed
share (one-sixth each) of the total inheritance. Thus, we may conclude that in
the presence of either children or brothers and/or sisters of the deceased, the
parents get a fixed share in the total inheritance.

From the last line of the referred part of this
verse, which says that the share of the deceased's mother is returned to the
original share (i.e., the share stipulated for the mother in case the deceased
had any children -- one-sixth), one may easily derive that if a person dies
childless but has any brothers and/or sisters:

the share of the deceased's father will also be
one-sixth, which is the original share of the deceased's father (i.e., the
share stipulated for the father in case the deceased had any children --
one-sixth); and

the brothers and/or sisters of the deceased
shall take the same position, with regards to inheriting the deceased's
property, as would have been the position of the deceased's children, if he
had any. The statement of Verse 176, clearly supports this derivation.

Both these derivations can be made on the simple
basis that in case of a childless person, if he has any brothers and/or sisters
the share of the mother has been returned to what her share would have been if
the deceased had any children.

You shall get half of what your wives leave, if they die childless. But if
they do have children, your share shall then be a quarter of what they leave
after carrying out any will made by the deceased or payment of any debt owed
by her. And they (your wives) shall have a quarter of what you leave, if you
die childless. But in case you have children, they shall then get one-eighth
of what you leave

According to the referred part of the verse, in case a woman dies childless,
the husband shall get half of her property and assets. While if she has any
children, her husband's share shall be one-fourth. On the other hand, if a man
dies, his wife shall get a quarter of his property and assets, if he dies
childless, while she shall get one-eighth if he has any children.

[5]Â
The share of the deceased's children has primarily been mentioned in the
following words:

Allah enjoins you about [the share of inheritance of] your children: A
male's share shall equal that of two females...

(For the purpose of understanding the verse more easily, its remaining part
that relates to the share of a person's offspring -- i.e., in case there are
only daughters, more than two shall have two-thirds of what has been left
behind. And if there be only one daughter, her share shall be half --Â is
not yet being considered. This part of the verse shall be considered in detail,Â later.)

If the commandment of the Qur'an, regarding the law of inheritance had ended
here, it would have meant that the total property and assets of the deceased are
to be distributed among his/her children, according to the principle that each
male child gets double the share of every female child. For example, if someone
says: "This money is to be distributed among your children equally",
it would simply imply that: 1) the money is to be distributed among all the
children, according to the principle of equality; and 2) no one except the
"children" has a right on the total money. In the same way, if someone
says: "This money is to be distributed among your children in such a way
that each female child gets half of what each male child gets", there shall
be no change in the two stipulated implications of the sentence, except that in
the latter case the principle of distribution, rather than "equality"
shall be "each female gets half of what each male gets".

But, as a matter of fact, the commandment of the Qur'an does not end here.
The Qur'an has mentioned a few other relations, like the parents and the spouse
of the deceased, who are to be given a specified portion of the deceased's
property. But the words used in describing the shares of the relations other
than the children of the deceased are such that clearly imply that the other
relations are to be given a fixed proportion of the total property and assets of
the deceased, while his/her children are to share the balance of the property
remaining after the share of the other relations has been given.

Suppose someone says: "Distribute this money equally among your
children; give one-third of it to your parents". Obviously the implication
of this sentence is quite clear. It simply means that first, one-third of the
total money should be given to the parents and the remaining amount (two-thirds
of the total) should be distributed equally among the children. In the same way,
if someone says: "Distribute this money among your children in such a way
that each girl gets half of what each boy gets; give one-third of it to your
parents and a quarter of it to your wife", it would simply mean that after
giving one-fourth of the money to the wife and one-third to the parents, the
remaining five-twelfths is to be distributed among the children in such a way
that each boy gets the double of what each girl gets. It also means that if the
person does not have either or both the parents and the wife, the total money
would then be distributed among his children according to the given principle.

The directive of the Qur'an is quite similar to the above example statements.
In a simplified form, it says that the deceased's children are to share the
property on the principle that each male child gets double the share of each
female child; parents are to get one-sixth each; and the deceased's wife is to
be given one-eighth. This simply means that the deceased's mother, father and
wife are to be given one-sixth, one-sixth and one-eighth of the total property
respectively. The remaining balance (13/24th) shall then be
distributed among the children according to the stipulated principle.

From the above, it can easily be seen that according to the law of
inheritance of the Qur'an, Children of the deceased are to share in the balance
of the property and assets according to the specified principle, after the
shares of the first category of inheritors has been given.

...if a man dies childless and he has only a sister, she shall inherit half
of what he leaves; and if sheÂ dies childless, then her brother shall be
her heir; and if their are two sisters, they shall inherit two-thirds of what
he [or she] leaves. If there are many brothers and sisters, the share of each
male should be that of two females...

If we compare the shares of the brothers and sisters of the deceased (if he
dies childless) as given in verse 176 with that of the deceased's children (if
he had any) given in verse 11, we can easily see that in verse 176, the share of
sons has been replaced by that of brothers and the share of daughters by that of
sisters. In other words, we may say that in the absence of children, the
brothers and sisters of the deceased take the place of his sons and daughters,
with regards to the share in the property and assets of the deceased.

The words describing the shares of the brothers and sisters of the deceased
(in case he dies childless) in verse 176 are also quite similar to those
describing the shares of his sons and daughters in verse 11. We can therefore
safely say that in the absence of the deceased's children, after the property
and assets of the deceased have been distributed among the inheritors of the
first category, the balance of his inheritance shall be distributed among
his/her brothers and sisters.

[7]Â
From the last two explanatory notes, it may be summed up that after the
shares of the first category of inheritors have been given, the balance of the
property and assets of the deceased is to be distributed among his children,
according to the principle that each male gets double the share of each female.
In the absence of the deceased's children, this balance is to be distributed
among his brothers and sisters, according to the same male/female proportion.
Now, the question is what will happen to this balance, in case the deceased has
neither children nor brothers and/or sisters. The Qur'an says that in such a
case, the parents, who originally were inheritors of the first category, will
now take the balance of property and assets of the deceased and thus, in this
case, become inheritors of the second category:

...if the deceased has children, the parents shall inherit a sixth each,
and if he has no children and the parents are his heirs then his mother shall
receive a third, and if he has brothers and sisters then the mother's share is
the same one-sixth...

As is clear from this portion of the verse, the share of the parents is
one-sixth each, if the deceased has any children or, in the absence of children,
any brothers and sisters. But if the deceased has neither children nor brothers
and/or sisters then the parents are the heirs. Thus, after the share of the
deceased's spouse has been given, the remainder shall be given to the parents.
This is the obvious implication of the following portion of the referred verse:

...if he has no children and the parents are his heirs then his mother
shall receive a third...

...if the deceased has children, the parents shall inherit a sixth each,
and if he has no children and the parents are his heirs then his mother shall
receive a third, and if he has brothers and sisters then the mother's share is
the same one-sixth...

The share of parents in case the deceased has any children is quite obvious
(i.e., one-sixth each). In case a person dies childless but has any brothers
and/or sisters the mother's share is given in this verse to be one-sixth, but
the father's share is not mentioned here. Thus, someone may ask: what shall be
the share of the deceased's father in such a case?

The father's share, in this case, like that of the mother, is also returned
to its original amount (i.e., what his share would have been if the deceased had
any children). Thus, the father's share shall also be one-sixth. This is also
supported by the directive of verse 176, from which it is quite clear that in
the absence of the deceased's children, his/her brothers and sisters shall be
treated exactly like his/her children. Thus, the share of parents, mother and
father, of a childless deceased, in the presence of his/her brothers and/or
sisters is the same as it would have been if he had any children.

You shall get half of what your wives leave, if they die childless. But if
they do have children, your share shall then be a quarter of what they leave
after carrying out any will made by the deceased or payment of any debt owed
by her. And they (your wives) shall have a quarter of what you leave, if you
die childless. But in case you have children, they shall then get one-eighth
of what you leave

According to the referred part of the verse, in
case a woman dies childless, the husband shall get half of her property and
assets. While if she has any children, her husband's share shall be one-fourth.
On the other hand, if a man dies, his wife shall get a quarter of his property
and assets, if he dies childless, while she shall get one-eighth if he had any
children.

[10]Â
The sentence: "Allah enjoins you about [the share of inheritance of]
your children" is a prelude to the sentence: "A male's share shall
equal that of two females".

Had this commandment ended on the
words "A male's share shall equal that of two females",
then it would have meant:

If the children of a deceased are
only a boy and a girl then the boy shall receive twice as much as the girl.

If there are more than one boy and
one girl, then the inheritance shall be divided among them in a manner that
each boy receives twice the share of a girl.

If there are only boys or only
girls then they shall be the inheritors of the whole.

The third case is also, quite
evidently, an essential outcome of the style and pattern of the verse. For
example,Â if
someone says: "This money is to be distributed among beggars and
a male beggar is to be given twice the amount given to a female beggar", it
would simply mean that the money is actually meant for the beggars; whether the
beggars are only male, only female or a combination of the two, all the money
shall be distributed among them.

But the directive of the Qur'an does
not end here; an exception immediately follows, thereby amending it.

The sentence: "in case
there are only daughters: more than two shall have two-thirds of what has been
left behind [as inheritance]" is an exception to the words: "A male's
share shall equal that of two females". Now the whole sentence, including
the exception, means that if among the children of the deceased there are only
girls, whether two or more, then their share shall be two-thirds of the total
inheritance. The words: "And if there be only one daughter, her share shall
be half [of what is left behind as inheritance]" are co-ordinated to this
exception by the copulative "and", and thus do not form an independent
clause.

It may be noted here that we have
taken the words of the Qur'an: "more than two shall have two-thirds"
to stand for "two or more than two daughters". The reason is that the
words: "two or" have been suppressed before the words "more than
two". This suppression is due to the style and pattern of the Qur'anic
language. If closely observed, it shall be seen that the share of daughters in
the verse are stated in the descending order. Now, if it was desired to mention
the share of two girls separately, even though it was the same as that of more
than two girls, there could only have been two possible constructions for the
particular sentence:

two or more than two shall have
two-thirds of what has been left...; or

more than two or two shall have
two-thirds of what has been left...

if the choice was made in favor of the
first sentence, it would have spoiled the descending order of the description;
while the second sentence would have meant non-idiomatic Arabic, just as the
translation is un-idiomatic English.

Thus, the Qur'an which is neither
willing to sacrifice the style and quality of its language nor likes to do away
with the logical sequence of its commandments has suppressed the words:
"two or" in the said verse. However, this suppression has not created
any confusion whatsoever. It is quite obvious that the referred verse implies
that if a person dies leaving behind two or more daughters, his inheritance
shall be distributed in all his daughters, whether they are two or more than
two, in such a way that each girl gets an equal share of the two-thirds of the
total inheritable property.

This fact is further substantiated by
verse 176. A close analysis of verse 176 shows that it has prescribed exactly
the same shares for the brothers and sisters of the deceased (in case he dies
childless) and exactly the same rules for such distribution, as had already been
prescribed for the sons and daughters of the deceased (if he had any children)
in verse 11. The only difference is that in verse 176 the Qur'an has described
these shares in the ascending order. A combined study of the two referred
verses, not only helps in filling in the blanks of these verses, if they are
studied independently but also gives the careful reader an idea of the style of
the Qur'anic language. The relevant portions of the two verses has been
reproduced below for a quick reference.

Verse 11 states: "Allah enjoins
you about [the share of inheritance of] your children: A male's share shall
equal that of two females -- in case there are only daughters [who inherit]:
[two or] more than two shall have two-thirds of what has been left behind [as
inheritance]. And if there be only one daughter, her share shall be half [of
what is left behind as inheritance]"

Verse 176 states: "Allah enjoins
you about your kalalah heirs that if a man dies childless and he has only a
sister, she shall inherit half of what he leaves; and if sheÂ dies
childless, then her brother shall be her heir; and if their are two sisters,
they shall inherit two-thirds of what he [or she] leaves. If there are many
brothers and sisters, the share of each male should be that of two females.

The common points in these verses are:

if there are males as well as
females, a male's share shall equal that of two females

the share of one sister, if she is
alone, is the same as that of one daughter, if she is alone

Besides these two common points
another important commonality in the two situations is that the share of the
parents of the deceased is the same (one-sixth), i.e., in case a person who has
some children dies, and his parents are alive, the share of his parents shall be
one-sixth. Again, his parents would get the same share if the person dies
childless but has some brothers and sisters. Whereas, if neither of the two
(i.e., brothers/sisters or sons/daughters) exist then the share of the parents
shall be different.

These three common features point to
the fact that in case a person dies childless, his brothers and sisters
substitute his children, with regards to their prescribed shares in their
inheritance.

Keeping this in mind, all the blanks
(if any) of the two referred verses can be easily filled. For instance:

On the basis of verse 11, we may
say that if there are more than two sisters, they shall have equal shares of
two-thirds of the inheritable property (although this is quite obvious if
verse 176 is read with care independent of verse 11).

On the basis of verse 176, we may
say that if there are two daughters, they shall have equal shares of
two-thirds of the inheritable property (although this is also quite obvious
if verse 11 is read with care independent of verse 176).

On the basis of verse 176, we may
say that if there is only one son, he shall get the whole inheritable
property (this again is quite obvious in verse 11, even if it is read
independent of verse 176, as has been shown in the illustration of
"distribution of money among beggars" above.)

...if he has no children and the parents are his heirs then his mother
shall receive a third...

One may ask: what shall be the share of the father in such a case. A close
look at the above sentence shall itself provide an answer. If someone says:
"This money is to be given to Mr. A and Mr. B; Mr. A should get a quarter
of it", it would obviously mean that theÂ remainder three-fourths is
for Mr. B. By the same token, when the Qur'an says: "if the deceased's
parents (A and B) are his only heirs, then the mother (A) shall receive a
third", it obviously means that the father (B) shall receive the
remaining two-thirds.

[12] For instance, a person
may say that besides the stipulated shares of his parents (one-sixth each) and
his wife (one-eighth) he wants one-eighth of his property and assets to be
given to one of his brothers or sisters (in the presence of children), or an
aunt or an uncle. Â

[13]Â
For instance, a person who has no children, brothers and/or sisters or
parents may leave his property and assets to any of his aunts, uncles or
cousins.

[14]Â
There can be some instances where the total property and assets of the
deceased are not distributed after all the inheritors have been given their
specified share of inheritance. Some of these instances are as under:

Where a person has one or more daughters but no sons -- in this case
half or one-third of the balance of the property and assets of the
deceased, after giving the shares of the inheritors of the first category
may remain undistributed.

Where a childless person has one or more sisters but no brothers -- in
this case half or one-third of the balance of the property and assets of
the deceased, after giving the shares of the inheritors of the first
category may remain undistributed.

Where a childless person who has no brother or sister has either of two
parents -- in this case one-third (if he has a father but no mother) or
two-thirds (if he has a mother but no father) of the balance of the
property and assets of the deceased, after giving the shares of the
inheritors of the first category may remain undistributed.

In any of these instances, a person may nominate any of his relatives to
take the remaining part of his property and assets.

...And if a man or a woman is made an heir on account of his [or her] kalalah
relationship [with the deceased] and he [or she] has one brother or sister,
the brother and sister shall each receive a sixth and if they be more than
two, they shall then share in one-third...

I would like to have an explanation about what Ramadan exactly is. Inform me of its meaning and its customs.

Reply

The Islamic (lunar) calendar, like the solar calendar, is divided into twelve months. Ramadan is the name of the ninth month of this lunar calendar. The significance of this month in Muslim history is that the revelation of the final book of God (according to the Muslim belief) – the Qur’an – was initiated in the month of Ramadan. Though, according to the Qur’an, fasting was also prescribed for the followers of those prophets of God, who came before Mohammad (pbuh), yet God selected Ramadan as the month of fasting for Muslims because of its particular significance with reference to the revelation of the Qur’an .

An explanation of fasting, in my opinion, should entail answers to the following questions:

What are the rules that a Muslim has to abide by while in a state of fasting?

What is the reason for which fasting is prescribed in the Divine law? and

What is the reason for the selection of Ramadan as a month of fasting for Muslims?

These three aspects are briefly explained in the following paragraphs:

As far as the rules relating to fasting are concerned, they are quite simple. A fast is observed from dawn to sunset. A Muslim, while in a state of fasting, has to refrain from eating, drinking and sexual relations with his/her spouse. A person who is ill or on a journey, due to which it may be inconvenient for him to fast during the prescribed days of Ramadan, may miss the number of fasts during which he is not feeling well or is on a journey. Later on, when he recovers from his ailment or returns from his journey, he should complete the number of fasts missed during the prescribed month of Ramadan. A person who suffers from a permanent ailment, due to which he is permanently incapacitated from fasting, may as a compensation for each fast missed feed a poor person.

As stated earlier, a fast is observed from dawn to sunset. Thus, all restrictions regarding eating, drinking and sexual relations are observed during the stipulated time from dawn to sunset. In other words, after sunset or before dawn, there is no restriction on any of these activities.

As far as the reason for which fasting has been prescribed in the Divine law, it is clearly mentioned in the Qur’an that it is to inculcate the quality of “Taqwa” in the individuals. “Taqwa” is an Arabic word, which implies the ability and the quality to strictly adhere to God’s laws. The Islamic Shari`ah includes a number of directives, which under varying circumstances may become quite difficult to follow. Fasting, according to the Qur’an is a training period, during which for a limited number of days, Muslims are required to follow a stricter daily schedule than is the case in normal days. During Ramadan, for the purpose of this training of inculcating Taqwa, even things (like eating, drinking and having sexual relations with one’s spouse) that are normally allowed for a Muslim are disallowed/prohibited for a stipulated time. This exercise is expected not only to develop the ability of self-control in the individual – which in turn helps in abiding by the divine directives in normal days – but is also expected to develop the quality of patience and steadfastness in following the divine directives and the ability to face any difficulties that one may have to encounter in following these directives.

This training period, for the purpose of better understanding and appreciation, may be compared to the training period that a newly recruited military cadet is put through during the initial stages of his service. This training period is to develop in the cadet the ability to face the contingent hard times that he may have to go through during his tenure of service. In the same way, a Muslim, is put through a stricter schedule of a training period for one month during a year for the purpose of developing in him the ability and the quality of “Taqwa” (adhering to divine directives) in his normal course of life.
As far as the reason for the selection of the month of Ramadan for the purpose of fasting is concerned, the Qur’an itself tells us that the selection is made to celebrate the revelation of the Qur’an . It was during this month of Ramadan that, according to the Muslim faith, God revealed to man his final guidance. Fasting has been prescribed during this month to remind all Muslims of their responsibilities toward this final guidance of God – namely adhering to its directives in letter and spirit. What could have been a more appropriate way of celebrating the anniversary of the revelation of the Qur’an than reminding ourselves of our prime duties toward it – i.e. submitting to its directives with patience, perseverance and steadfastness and to thank God for bestowing upon man His guidance to the path of promised and everlasting salvation.

The True Spirit of Fasting

Is it haraam for one who is fasting in Ramadan to be bad such as swear and start a fight?

Reply

Fasting, according to the Qur’an, has been prescribed upon the Muslims as a training program for the elevation of their level of piety and obedience to the Lord of the worlds in their normal daily routines. Thus, during the month of Ramadan, a Muslim is ordained to refrain even from things, which are, generally, lawful for him. During these days, from sunrise to sunset, a Muslim is directed to refrain from drinking even water to quench his thirst, from eating even the lawful food to satisfy his hunger and from having sexual contact even with his/her spouse. During these days, a Muslim adheres to these restrictions, on the fulfillment of his natural requirements and desires, only in obedience to the directives of God. Therefore, even though from a purely juristic point of view, it is only eating, drinking and sexual contact, during the daytime that breaks a fast; yet if we keep the true spirit of fasting in perspective, we can easily derive that all such other things which a Muslim should generally refrain from, should be more strictly and more consciously avoided during these days. It is, in fact, based on this spirit of fasting that the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: “Whoever is not willing to refrain from lying and from doing bad deeds; God does not require from him to refrain from eating and drinking” (as reported by Bukhari). Teaching the same spirit of fasting, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: “Fasting is like a shield against bad deeds. Therefore, [while fasting,] a person should neither involve himself in lewdness nor lose his temper. If someone tries to get him involved in a fight, he should say: ‘I am fasting’ [and, thus, avoid fighting]” (as reported by Bukhari).

Fasting is, in fact, a strenuous training program for Muslims with the target to strengthen their spirit to avoid involving themselves in any actions or deeds, which are not approved by their Lord. This is the true spirit of fasting. With this true spirit of fasting in mind, it is clear that a person should strictly refrain from involving himself in all such deeds, activities and discussions, which are clearly against the likings of our Lord.

Things Related to Ramadan

It has become tradition for Muslims to pray Taraweeh prayers after Isha. After reading some of your articles I have come to realize that the Prophet NEVER prayed Taraweeh, he NEVER prayed Witr prayers and he only prayed Tahajjud prayers. Am I correct in my understanding? If I am, can you please explain how one performs the Tahajjud prayers as did the Prophet? Detail would be much appreciated (such as groups of two rak'ats to a certain number of times etc...).

I was told that the Tahajjud prayers are only to be prayed during the last 10 days of Ramadan. Also, praying Taraweeh on whatever day Lailatul'Qadr lands on is as if you've prayed a 1000 months of prayers (or something to that affect). This relates obviously to the surah in the Qur'an. Is this accurate and what was intended in the verse?

I may be asking too much of you but I would request that if you could inform me of the things that are Fard and Sunnah during Ramadan. There may be many misconceptions and I don't know they are misconceptions so I'm basically asking you to weed out somethings. Ramadan is important to me and I would like to fulfill my obligations and additionally commit voluntary deeds and actions.

I know you have written quite extensively but I believe some of the queries I have posed are not mentioned in those articles.

Reply

It is not very accurate to say that the Prophet (pbuh) never offered Witr prayers. A more accurate statement would be that the Prophet (pbuh) is not reported to have offered Witr prayers with the Ishaa prayers. On the contrary, the Prophet (pbuh) offered Witr prayers as a part of the Tahajjud prayers, which he regularly offered throughout his life.
As for the various methods in which the Prophet (pbuh) offered Tahajjud prayers, please refer to one of my earlier response to a related question titled: "How to Offer Witr Prayers?"[1].

You write:

I was told that the Tahajjud prayers are only to be prayed during the last 10 days of Ramadan. Also, praying Taraweeh on whatever day Lailatul'Qadr lands on is as if you've prayed a 1000 months of prayers (or something to that affect).

The referred idea is completely unfounded and has no basis in the primary sources of Islam. Not only did the Prophet (pbuh) offer Tahajjud prayer during the whole of the month of Ramadan, but also during all the other nights of the year.
As for the special reward of deeds – including offering supererogatory prayers like tahajjud prayers etc. – it is reported in a few narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) and, as you have mentioned, the idea seems to be based on the referred verse of the Qur'an.

You write:

I would request that if you could inform me of the things that are Fard and Sunnah during Ramadan.

The Fard practices during Ramadan are the same as during other days of the year, except for those obligatory practices, which are specifically related to the practice of fasting. As for the supererogatory practices, there is no limit or specification of these practices. One should try to involve oneself in all kinds of pious deeds, specially those related to God's worship – as in supererogatory prayers and memorizing the supplications taught by the Qur'an and those reported in narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) – understanding God's guidance – as in reciting the Qur'an – or helping other human beings – as in spending out of one's wealth over and above the obligatory Zaka'h. The essence of one's life during the month of Ramadan, specially, and during the other days of the year, generally, should be to live a life that is as much in compliance and coherence with the recommendations of the Shari`ah as possible.

I hope this helps.

________________________________________
[1] Also included in this booklet in section 'Regarding Taraweeh Prayers

Observing Ramadan in a Muslim and a non-Muslim Country

I am a Christian student taking a class entitled Muslim Faith and Feeling to learn more about your life and faith. I am doing a paper on Ramadan. Since I am from the US, my question is:

How is it different celebrating Ramadan in a predominately non-Muslim country, like the USA?

How is it easier in a predominately Muslim country?

What are the unique difficulties celebrating it in the USA?

Whatever insights and understandings you can give me would be extremely helpful and appreciated.

Thank you for this site and for your input!

Reply

Observing the obligatory fasts of Ramadan, in its essence, is not any different whether the individual is residing in a predominantly Muslim or a non-Muslim country. Obviously, certain differences do arise due to the participation/non-participation of the general collectivity in which the individual is residing. However, these differences only make it more or less convenient in fulfilling the obligation.

For instance, while living in a pre-dominantly Muslim country, it is very unlikely that a person be invited at a social gathering in which edibles are to be served, while in a state of fasting. While such inconveniences may have to be encountered while living in a pre-dominantly non-Muslim society. In the same way, the participation of the collectivity in this form of worship may in a number of other ways, support and prompt the individual in fulfilling his obligation. For instance, in most Muslim countries, the beginning and the closing times for fasts are officially announced, there is generally a restriction on eating and drinking in public places during the fasting time etc. All these factors may, in a way, help the individual in fasting. In short, the difference between fasting in a pre-dominantly Muslim and a non-Muslim country may be explained in terms of a social backing of the worship at a macro level.

However, it should be kept in mind that this difference only effects the convenience for the individual in fulfilling his obligation. It does not in any way effect the nature of the obligation itself. That is, all Muslims, irrespective of their place of residence are obliged to fast during the month of Ramadan.

How Can the Differences regarding Prayer Timing and Ramadan Dates be Resolved?

I live in the United States and every year I observe Ramadan. It drives me insane that as Muslims we cannot agree as to the date of when it begins. I get highly upset that this simple issue has not been overcome yet. If Allah created everything in due measure then it must be that scientifically we can know in the most accurate way when Ramadan begins, without having to see it. My dilemma is this: Who do I follow as to the beginning of Ramadan? Who is best versed at knowing when Ramadan begins?
Even our prayer times differ. Here's an example, say I am looking up prayer times in my area, I get questions such as "is your prayer method: Umm Al-Qura, Muslim World League, Egyptian General Authority of Survey, University Of Islamic Sciences Karachi, ISNA" etc... The other question is "Jurist Method: Standard or Hanfi..." Another is if we observe day-light savings time... I understand there are different schools but I am a Muslim and that's it. I don't belong to any of the major schools of thought and I don't even want to be distinguished as Sunni or otherwise. I am a Muslim because Allah has asked/told us not to divide. So who do I follow? The Saudis, the Egyptians, etc... Who? When is the accurate prayer time? When does Ramadan begin and end (especially in the U.S.)? It is in the nature of mankind to disagree with one another but I just want the truth, it is the only thing that makes me closer to my Creator.

Any help in my decision making would be of great value, especially for prayer times and Ramadan.

Jazak Allah Khair

Reply

As a principle, a Muslim, in his individual capacity, may ascribe to and follow the opinion of any of the schools of thoughts, which he considers to be more understandable and in keeping with the spirit of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. In this sphere, no one has a right to force the individual to an opinion, which he – the individual – is himself not comfortable with. However, in contrast to matters relating to the individuals, which may be decided by each individual in question, matters relating to the collectivity of the Muslims may not be as simple to deal with. It is because of this reason that the Qur’an has recommended the principle of deciding such matters on the basis of consultation between the Muslims or their representatives.
In view of the recommended principle of the Qur’an, all decisions relating to the collectivity of the Muslims – whether it is the timings of the congregational prayers, the beginning or the end of Ramadan or any other matter – should be taken on the basis of consultation. This really implies that in case of a difference of opinion among the Muslims, the opinion ascribed to by the majority of the Muslims should be accepted and implemented.

As an application of the foregoing principle, in the Muslim countries, it would indeed be recommended that the timings for the congregational prayers should be decided by the respective governments of these countries, through consultation between the representatives of the Muslims of these countries, within the allowable range of time for each prayer specified by the Prophet (pbuh). In case of a difference of opinion, the opinion of the majority of the representatives should prevail and be implemented. The same principle would apply in deciding about Ramadan.

In non-Muslim countries, it would be advisable for Muslims living in those countries to form informal consultative forums to facilitate decision-making in religious matters relating to these Muslim collectivities. These forums may be formed at various levels. For instance, to decide about the timings of congregational prayers and to look after the upkeep and administration of the mosques, a more localized forum may be formed, while to decide about the more universal issues, like the beginning of Ramadan, it would be advisable to form a council at a state or a national level. Common Muslims should be encouraged to adhere to the decisions of these forums.

As for using technological means of predetermining the dates of Ramadan, there would be no harm in doing so, provided such a determination can be made on a reliable basis.

I hope this helps.

On the Verses on Fasting - First Question

Hi, could you send me the translation for the verses 186 to 188 of the second Surah. Also explain the meaning of these verses. It seems that initially it was not permitted, in the month of Ramadan, for the men to sleep with their wives even in the nighttime; later on the prohibition was removed. Is that right?

Reply

As far as your question regarding the Ramadan Ayah (verse) is concerned, I shall try to explain the issue very briefly.
As I understand it, the first part of the revelation regarding fasting in Ramadan, was from Al-Baqarah 2: 183 to 184. A simple translation of these verses follows:

“O you who believe, fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you, so that you may learn to live according to the commands of Allah. (183) A few numbered days. However, if anyone of you is ill or on a journey then the prescribed number should then be completed in other days. And for those who can bear it, feeding of an indigent, shall be a ransom. And he that gives more (than this) of his own freewill, it is better for him. And that you fast (and thus complete the number) is better for you, if only you knew. (184).”

Later on, Al-Baqarah 2: 185 - 187 were revealed. In these verses:

The reason for prescribing Ramadan as the month of fasting was given.

The allowance of “fidyah” or ransom for any missed fast, (feeding of one indigent) was removed. As it was only a temporary allowance, to train the people, as obligatory fasting was quite a tough proposition. (185)

Questions asked about maintaining the sanctity of Ramadan were answered. (186-187)

Keeping the above explanation in perspective, I think that when Ramadan was initially prescribed as a month of fasting, people became overly cautious about maintaining the sanctity of this month. They thought it was better to completely abandon sexual relationships with their wives, even during the nights, throughout the sacred month of Ramadan. This restriction was never mentioned in the first revelation (or even later ones). It was only an overly cautious assumption of the Muslims. Thus, later on, when a question regarding the issue was put to the prophet, the verses that you have referred in your letter were then revealed.

On the Verses on Fasting - Second Question

Here is the translation by NJD (N.J. Dawood) for the verses 186 and 187 of the second Surah:

“If My servants question you about Me, tell them that I am near, I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls to Me; therefore let them answer My call and put their trust in Me, that they may be rightly guided.It is now lawful for you to lie with your wives on the night of the fast; they are a comfort to you as you are to them. God knew that you were deceiving yourselves. He has relented towards you and pardoned you. Therefore you may now lie with them and seek what God has ordained for you. Eat and drink until you can tell a white thread from a black one in the light of the coming dawn. Then resume the fast till nightfall and do not approach them, but stay at your prayers in the mosques.These are the bounds set by God: do not approach them. Thus He makes known His revelations to mankind that they may guard themselves against evil.”

What I understand from the above is that do not approach your wives while fasting but stay at your prayers in the mosques. You and the other translation refer to ‘aitikaf’ (which I believe is something like staying at the mosque during night saying your prayers). By the way what is meant by “... what God has ordained for you.”

Reply

As far as the text is concerned, you will most definitely see the words “wa antum `aakifuna fil masaajid” (Al-Baqarah 2: 187) in these words, the word “`aakifun” is given to mean the same as “Mu`takif” which in turn has been translated as: “secluded, isolated, withdrawn, solitary, recluse, remaining, staying, abiding” (Al-Mawrid, Arabic to English Dictionary, dar al ilm lilmalayeen)
Now, in the Qur’an , the word “`aakifun” is used as a term just like the word “Sala’h”. It means a “complete temporary seclusion for concentrated praying”.

I think that NJD’s translation over here is not a very accurate one. I would think that the word “`aakifun” (because it is a term) should not be translated at all. It could be something like this: “and do not approach them, when you are in `aitikaaf in mosques” and then this word could have been explained in a footnote; “but stay at your prayers in the mosques” is not a good translation of “wa antum `aakifuna fil masaajid”. I really do not know what should be the correct English Translation for the words which are translated as: “... what God has ordained for you”. The meaning, as I see it, are the outcomes of sexual relations.

Clarification of a Narrative Regarding Ramadan…

The common understanding of Muslims is that when Ramadan begins the devils are chained and the gates of heaven are opened. However, this does not seem to make sense because if the devils are chained then how is it possible to do evil during Ramadan? Is the suggestion then that during Ramadan no human beings are being enticed to do evil, but rather it is from within them? This does not seem to make sense either since one could argue that evil continues to exist with the same vigor during Ramadan as it does outside of it.

Reply

Before presenting my comments on the referred concept of the Muslims, it may be clarified that it is based on a narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). According to the reporting of Bukhari, the Prophet (pbuh) is ascribed to have said:
When the month of Ramadan approaches, the doors of heaven are cast open, while the doors of Hell are shut down and the forces of evil are tied in chains.

The correct implication of this narrative, in my opinion, is close to what Ibn Abd al-Burr has mentioned in his commentary on the Mu’atta of Imam Maalik – Al-Tamheed. The narrative, in my opinion, implies that during the days of Ramadan, God protects all those who faithfully and sincerely intend to fast and earn for themselves the mercy, forgiveness and protection of their Lord. This implication of the narrative is coherent with the declaration of the Qur’an that when a person resolves to do good and to follow the path prescribed by his Lord, God helps him in doing good and makes the path of piety easier for him to tread. In Surah

Al-Ankaboot, the Qur’an promises:

Those, who strive in our ways, We shall definitely guide them to Our paths. (29: 69)

Then again in Surah Al-Layl, the Qur’an promises:

For him, who gave [in charity], feared God [abiding by His limits] and testified the good [end], We shall, indeed, make the path of bliss easier for him [to tread]. (92: 5 – 7)

In keeping with the cited promise of the Qur’an, the Prophet (pbuh), in the referred narrative, is reported to have said that when Ramadan approaches, God opens the doors for heaven and shuts down the doors to hell and enchains all evil forces for all those who have a sincere resolve to piety and to live their lives in a manner which is prescribed by their Lord. In this way, God protects the faithful and the obedient among people from the attacks of evil forces and makes the treading of the path of piety easier for them[1].

________________________________________
[1] Even though this rule would hold good under ordinary circumstances, yet because of the general attitude towards piety in the month of Ramadan, it has been specifically mentioned in the narrative under consideration, with special reference to the sacred month of Ramadan.::/wysiwyg_article::::articlecategory::41::/articlecategory::::panel_article_params:: ::/panel_article_params::::jseblodend::::/jseblodend::]]>learner@understanding-islam.com (Moiz Amjad)Worship and FastingSat, 21 Jul 2012 09:03:45 +0000The Promisehttp://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/morality-and-goodness/the-promise-9039
http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/morality-and-goodness/the-promise-9039::jseblod::ui_articles::/jseblod::::wysiwyg_article::"I know, I shouldn't have done that. I cannot deny that it was a sin. The same sin for which I have repented a number of times yet, I did it again! I need to repent truly this time. I need to be determined not to do this again; otherwise, I might not have a chance in the hereafter. I know, I know I need to change. I need to become better. I know about the importance of praying on time, I know how magical it is to pray at night and to continue to read the Qur'an. Well, let me be truthful with myself; it is not all that, I also need to start to behave better with people. I need to be a better husband and a better son; I should also be a better brother and a better friend. Okay, I know, I also need to be more conscious about how I earn money and how I spend it. I need to change; I need to be a better servant of God.

I can do that, no problem! I will do all that. Let me have a rest tonight and enjoy one last day tomorrow with the things I am used to. I will then do a true repent and become what I want to become. I promise myself to become a man of God after tomorrow. Let me see, what day will it be? Oh yes, Saturday, perfect! What is better than starting the change from the start of the Islamic week? Here we go, let me mark it in my diary … aha … ok, a nice tick, to remind me I will do a true repent on Saturday and will start a new life as a God-conscious person. It is time to sleep now. Hang on, how long is it until the Morning Prayer? Oh well, let me sleep tonight, I will do it every day from Saturday, for sure. Good night, me!"

So, the man slept. That night every thing was normal. The house was warm and cosy, the fridge had in it all that was needed for a good breakfast, and the clock alarm was set to ring at eight in the morning when, the man would wake up as usual and get ready to go to work.

One thing however, was slightly different that night. You know, there is a certain amount of blood flow that needs to reach the brain to keep the brain working. That night, no one knows why, somehow, something reduced the flow of blood in his body, to the extent that for a few minutes, no blood reached his brain. Morning came, the clock rang, but the man did not get up to stop the alarm. Later that morning, his body was found, lying on the bed, as if, he had been asleep for days.

It was very sad, of course and every one helped to bring things back to normal as soon as possible. They helped with the burial and the mourning ceremony and overall, it all went quite well. During the ceremonies and afterwards, every now and then, his family members and friends would remind each other of him with a smile. They were, of course very close to him and knew him very well. They knew almost every thing about him … almost everything. One thing that they did not know of course, was that the man had promised himself things that were very important to him … but he never had a chance to fulfil that promise.

His sudden death however, triggered a wakeup call for many. Consequently, one of his closest friends found some time to reflect on his own life and then, in a moment of awakening, he made a pledge, a promise, to become a better person, "at the first possible chance". It was near midnight after the mourning ceremony and the best friend of the deceased was ready to go to sleep.

That night every thing was normal. The house was warm and cosy, the fridge had in it all that was needed for a good breakfast, and the clock was ticking...!::/wysiwyg_article::::articlecategory::34::/articlecategory::::panel_article_params:: ::/panel_article_params::::jseblodend::::/jseblodend::]]>abdullahrahim@gmail.com (Abdullah Rahim)Morality and GoodnessWed, 30 Mar 2011 20:39:53 +0000Hadith and Sunnah - Two Different Conceptshttp://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/sources-of-islam/hadith-and-sunnah-two-different-concepts-186
http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/sources-of-islam/hadith-and-sunnah-two-different-concepts-186::jseblod::ui_articles::/jseblod::::wysiwyg_article::

The history of Ahadith and their compilation is a long and tedious investigative process far too grand to be encapsulated within the short pages of this article. Therefore the attempt will be to try to clarify misunderstood concepts and to summarize the understanding of Sunnah and Ahadith better.

The terms Sunnah and Hadith have been, wrongly, amalgamated. Typically when one or the other word is being referenced, its true meaning is taken for granted as if it is inseparable from the other word. This has not only caused confusion, but has created this ideology that one depends on the other in order to complete what the Qur'an has not mentioned in regards to religion. This is a fallacious presumption. In order for the reader to appreciate the difference and their affects, a thorough study of the subject should be undertaken. Nevertheless, this article shall be an attempt to clarify the terms and their functions in a clear and simple manner.

In trying to analyze Ahadith a comprehensible and simple definition must be arrived at. In the simplest of definitions a Hadith is a reported tradition. Yet, in Islamic terms its scope is narrowed to very sensitive terminology affecting the overall scheme of Islamic doctrine. Hadith, as defined by Understanding Islam, is a narration of the words or acts of the Prophet, as perceived and transmitted by one or more persons who heard or saw the Prophet saying or performing these acts. These attributed perceptions to the Prophet are critical in developing the clear distinction of Sunnah from Hadith. The reader may examine this by a short example:

A teacher teaches with words and actions in a classroom setting. Students A, B, C, learn from this teacher but they were not allowed to write anything down. The teacher is out of the picture yet the students pass on the teacher's material to the next generation of students (D, E, F, G, H, I). Thereafter the classroom size grows and A, B, C no longer are around to teach so D, E, F, G, H, I teach the next set of students which is growing rapidly. The cycle of students becoming teachers developed through the generations. However, new ideas began to spring up and were made out to be of the original teaching. So, another student (X) decides to take the initiative to gather all the teaching of words and action to verify and compile them for the masses.

The above narration is a crude illustration of the process of how Ahadiths were compiled. Although this magnificent feat was achieved, many potential problems arose along with the compilation of these traditions. Other than the most obvious problems that one may observe there are several that are not as easily decipherable. For example, the context and setting of many Ahadith are missing. The Prophet may have well passed an injunction on something but the very important factors of the framework are not clearly understood. The lack of background information may throw the entire situation into confusion. Even if those who have transferred the information do it to their best ability, there are still potential dangers. The traditions as received and understood by one or more persons is important. The meaning that each individual has placed upon the words may "color" the transmission. A word may be left out or replaced. If this were not the case the great compilers would not have had to sift through hundreds of thousands of Ahadith. Some authentic ones may have been discarded while some not so authentic ones may have been compiled. Ahadith, though the science of their collection is far more sophisticated, is basically a written history of events. This in no way belittles the compilers or the Ahadith themselves nor the subjects they refer to but rather puts them in perspective to their nature and their importance in Islam.

The Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad was established during his life for all to follow and to pass on for generations. The Sunnah is the second primary source of the doctrine of Islam, the Qur'an being the first. They go hand in hand to complete the beliefs and practices all Muslims are to follow. However, the question arises, "what is Sunnah?" The Sunnah is a set of practices that the Prophet taught the Muslims to follow. For twenty-three years, five times a day, he showed them how to purify themselves for payer (ablution, Wudu). For the same amount of years and the same number of times a day, he showed them how to pray. He showed them to eat with their right hands, and invoke God's name and blessings upon the food and to thank God when finished. For a number of years he taught them to perform the pilgrimage (Hajj) and all its details and many other things that Muslims do now as if it is second nature. It was not what he ate or how he ate, nor was it what he dressed in or what he preferred that became Sunnah. It was the belief and conviction in the One God that became manifest in these practices which is the Sunnah. It was a code of practice limited to what God has ordained for humankind for all time. These set of practices were passed on through generations without the problems faced by Ahadith. There is no perception problem, or lack of context placement. There is not an individual that may mislead (whether purposefully or innocently) the rest of the chain from himself on. There is no confusing a certain practice as that taught by the Prophet with that taught by someone else. The Prophet was teaching the Sunnah of Islam to multitudes of people observing. It may have begun with ten who observed, then a hundred who followed, then thousands all observing the same practice over and over again, directly from the Prophet. This has remained a phenomenon to this day. A man praying in the United States of America does just the same as one who prays in Pakistan, thus following the very prescribed practice of the Messenger of God. To illustrate better the writer shall share a personal story.

I had always loved religion from the time when I was a child. It just fascinated me. I used to watch several of my family members pray and wanted to learn from them. My grandfather one day decided to take me to the local Mosque. I must have been only 3 or 4 years old at the time. He showed me how prepare for prayer and how to perform the ablution. We walked across the street and he proceeded to tell me to just follow what everyone else is doing. He said, in time, I would get better and the more we went together the more I would learn. When we got to the Mosque we took off our shoes to sit and listen to the imam. Then prayer began and I tried to follow by watching from the corner of my eyes, sometimes turning my head to see better what was going on. When we were finished we went home and my grandfather told me he was going to teach me a chapter of the Qur'an called the Opening (Al Fatiha). I became excited and agreed. So we began and I kept repeating the words over and over and over again. My grandfather then lay down and closed his eyes and said, "repeat!" So, I kept on going. Every time I made the slightest error he would correct me with the right words. He fell asleep and I too may have fallen asleep in the middle of reciting the words. My grandfather was an illiterate man and so was his father and his father's father and so on. They were religious and they passed down the religion to my father who is highly educated and in turn was taught to us.

The narrative is not an attempt to achieve an emotional response. It is an attempt at illustrating how the religion of Islam is passed on. Most Muslims learn their religion by following someone. By learning through example. The initial introduction of Islam to the generations of Muslims regards the passing on of the beliefs in the Qur'an and the practice of Sunnah. All other sources are almost always something pursued later on in life. This is a mere fact of history.

Sunnah and Hadith, therefore, are completely two different elements within Islamic doctrine. Sunnah was initiated by the Prophet for his Ummah to follow, while the latter, Hadith, was initiated by great men who wanted to preserve information about the events and incidents in the Prophet's life. It is a fact of history that the Prophet discouraged the recording any of his words so that they may not be confused with the transmission of the Qur'an, which was the primary mission of the Prophet. Had the Prophet felt that an essential part of his teachings would be lost if all Hadiths were not recorded then surely he would have ordered them to be written down by official scribes, just as there were official scribes of the Qur'an. It is obvious that the Prophet would then have taken some preparatory action to develop these Hadiths under his direct supervision. However, this is not what happened; the entire scheme of bringing Islam to the world was perfectly conveyed through the two primary sources of Islam, the Qur'an and Sunnah. To say otherwise would be tantamount to claiming that the Prophet failed to complete the doctrine as was revealed to him by God.

There are some, with slanderous intentions, who charge that those outside the realm of Islam concoct these explanations but they fail to provide any such evidence. They have elevated Ahadith, by invoking the term Sahih, to the status of the Qur'an and make it seem as if Islam is dysfunctional without these traditions. That is the same stance the Jewish tribes took when they developed their Talmud along with other books and many Christians with their churches. It is the responsibility of the Muslim Ummah to preserve both primary sources of Islam, the Qur'an and Sunnah, and maintain their religion as was transmitted by the Prophet through the generations.

Superstitious! Coward! Old fashioned! are the words that
still echoed in her head. Her face was soaked with warm drops that she had shed
during the past couple of hours while she had prostrated herself before the
Almighty time and again in this interval. She did not know how long she had been
up collecting and presenting before God the broken pieces of her soft heart that
was brutally hurt by the ruthless comments her friends made at the college this
morning. She had always been kind to them but they would always pass low
comments about her attire and for her fear and care about the Hereafter. Her
only crime was that she could not leave uncovered her head and chest like them
and that she could not put on skin tight or diaphanous garments. She had always
found it hard to show interest in the topics that they would discuss. She knew
that modesty was her real asset and that inner-purification was the real
objective of her life in this world. How could she go against the values that
the Almighty had inculcated within herself? How could she undertake to do
something that her conscience would vehemently disapprove of? Now at this moment
of the dark night, when she sees that she cannot not cope with the situation
anymore she resolves that she's had enough. She must quit going to the college
and shut herself up from the rest of the world!

This exemplary event may take place in many people's lives
with a little change in the scenario but they are often led to arrive at the
same decision because of the morbidly obnoxious treatment they are made to
receive for opting to live their lives according to the injunctions put forth by
the Almighty. This is awfully ironic that the world plays so insensitive a role
to the sincere feelings of those people who wish to take all of them to the road
that directly leads to the eternal bliss. It is sad that those who must be
respected and given an ear to hear soft words of good advice are mistreated and
branded as inferior.

This writer does not have an iota of doubt in his mind that
these circumstances are fair and just, yet his understanding of religion compels
him to humbly present the complete picture before all his sisters in God so that
they could know that 'quitting' is not what their Lord as well as this Ummah
expects from them.

What they must realize is that the unbecoming behavior that
their fellow human beings adopt toward their sincere feelings is nothing new and
has been so since ages. When we peruse the Holy Qur'a#n or even study history we
find that good souls always had to face hatred for showing unconditional love,
hurling stones for offering the Garden of Paradise, and harsh comments for
advancing words of wisdom and admonition. This however was their marvelous
attribute that they never gave up and remained steadfast unless they either
changed the world or sacrificed their lives for the sake of this holy mission.
This quality is no doubt hard to imbibe and retain but very desirable for those
who undertake to swim in the direction explored by their conscience instead of
drifting along in the immoral current with other people. Further deliberation
here reveals that while avoiding the circumstances resolves the crisis a person
is currently facing for the time being, it allows a minor problem to eventually
become a super one. To put it in other words, this attitude would surely permit
the evil to entangle each and every person on the face of this earth till no one
is left to proclaim the greatness of Allah. It is precisely for this reason that
the Qur'an has urged us to assume the status of the exhorter as well as of the
exhorted so that the good could flourish and the evil be put to a check. The
Qur'an thus reads;

Believing men and believing women are friends to each
other. They enjoin what is good and forbid what is wrong. (9:71)

Another point that must be understood very clearly is about
the nature of the test we are put through in this world. This life is not
supposed to be a path adorned with roses that someone would have to tread until
death overtakes them. The truth of the matter is that we have no choice but to
prick our feet with thorns that have been scattered by the Almighty Himself on
our way in the form of financial problems, natural calamities and humans
themselves. We, therefore, must not suffer from the illusion that we will win
entitlement to Heaven without being tested in this world. This idea has been
expounded upon by the Qur'an in the following words;

Did you think that you would enter the Paradise without
Allah testing those of you who fought hard (in His cause) and remained
steadfast? (3:142)

The implication being when a believer undertakes to combat
evil for the sake of God, he is not showered with rose petals. On the contrary,
he has to face sheer difficulties and full-blown problems. But if he remains
stoical and steadfast, he stands eligible to be blessed with the everlasting
life in the Garden of Paradise.

As far as the expectations of this Ummah are concerned, they
must know that it wants them to become a role model for all women across the
world. Everyone knows that there has been much hullabaloo over women's rights in
the last couple of centuries and much of the blame was placed on the religion of
Islam for violation thereof. Feminists clamorously put forward that Islam
hampers the achievements that women can otherwise accomplish in every sphere of
life. Although, it is a baseless allegation that the fanatics has placed on
Islam in their struggle to renounce every religion that endorses moral limits,
many people have gone astray because what they see in practice also
substantiates the veracity of the allegation. Innumerable articles have been
written to refute the claims of the feminists. But this alone won't work. We
must let the world see that a Muslim woman while observing all the injunctions
of Islam can achieve astronomical targets that others would dare not to commence
at all.

Obviously, this business necessitates that Muslim women be as
daring as to challenge the evil in its makeshift safe-haven and as bold as to
overthrow all the absurdly fabricated claims of the feminists. They must be
creative enough to introduce new chapters in the field of fine arts and as much
intelligent as to make revolutionary discoveries in the field of science while
keeping the Islamic attributes that make them unmatchable ornament.

In one of his articles[1]
Mr. Jochen Katz has pointed out a contradiction in Al-Zumar 39: 4 and Al-An`aam
6: 101.

Al-Zumar 39: 4 reads as:

Had God wanted to take a son, He would have selected of His creations,
whichever He pleased; He is absolutely clear of all fault; He is the God, the
one, the Almighty.

Al-An`aam 6: 101 reads as:

The Originator of the heavens and the earth; how can He have a son, when He
does not even have a wife? He created everything; and He is knowledgeable of
everything.

Explaining the contradiction in the contents of the two referred verses, Mr.
Katz writes:

Sura 39:4 clearly states that God could
have taken Himself a son from among his creation, i.e. without the
necessity of a consort to father such a son. But Sura 6:101 clearly
rejects the same idea as a logical impossibility.

Unfortunately, Mr. Katz has ignored the fact that the first verse is, in
fact, not describing whether God COULD take a son with or without
a consort or not. On the contrary, the referred verse is only stressing the fact
that God created the heavens and the earth not for the purpose of taking a son
for Himself, but with a just end and a wise purpose. If it were only to fulfill
His desire of taking for Himself a son, then He would have taken a son, from
amongst any of His creations, without resorting to creating the vast universe.
Thus, the referred verse is immediately followed by pointing out the deep wisdom
in the creation of the heavens and the earth as well as in the creation of the
human beings. This wisdom is pointed out to show the folly in the belief that
God created the Universe to take for Himself a son. Thus, Al-Zumar 39: 5
- 6 reads as:

He created the heavens and the earth with a just cause [not to take for
Himself a son]. He covers the night over the day and covers the day over the
night; He has appointed the sun and the moon - each of them running till its
prescribed time. Indeed, He is the Mighty, the Forgiving. He created you all
from a single soul and then made a mate for it, of its own species, And He
made for you of grazing animals the eight members [forming pairs of four
species]; He creates you in your mother's wombs, one creation after another,
under threefold covers. This is your Lord, the Ruler; there is no god besides
Him. Then how are you turned away?

Thus, if seen in the right context, the referred verse of Surah Al-Zumar
is not even related to whether God can take a son with or without a consort or
not.

As far as the second referred verse (Surah Al-An`aam 6: 101) is
concerned, it relates to the generally held concept of what we call a person's
son. The word 'son', can either be implied in a spiritual sense or a
physical sense. If implied in the spiritual sense, there is no distinction
between Jesus (pbuh) and the other creations of God, for all else is as much the
spiritual 'children' of God as Jesus (pbuh)[2].
On the contrary, if the word 'son' is implied in the physical sense, then it
should be according to the same principles on which we physically ascribe a
'son' to a person. In this case, ascribing a physical son to God should
follow a number of presuppositions about God - one of which is the copulation
with a spouse.

It is evident from the Qur'an that polytheists among the first addressees
of the Qur'an did ascribe physical progeny to God, even though, due to its
obvious absurdity, they did not ascribe to the belief of a physical spouse of
God. In the referred verse, the Qur'an has commented on this particular belief
of its addressees and has declared that, according to the common concept of
physical progeny, their belief is absolutely absurd, unless they also ascribe a
spouse to God, which would obviously be incorrect.

The foregoing explanation should suffice to show that the two verses on the
basis of which Mr. Katz has tried to establish the stated contradiction in the
Qur'an relate to two separate issues. One relates to the refutation of the
belief that God created the whole universe to take for Himself a 'son',
while the other points out the absurdity in ascribing a physical 'son' to
God.

[2]
Thus, according to John 20: 17, Jesus is reported to have said: "Do not
hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my
brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your
Father, to my God and your God'." The verse clearly makes no
distinction between Jesus (pbuh) and others. Furthermore, in Psalms 2: 7,
David (pbuh) is reported to have said: "I will tell of the decree of the
LORD: He said to me, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you'."